lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sean Carpenter" <stcarpen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2.4.0
Date Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:57:36 GMT
I agree with Digy's suggestion.  While keeping up with the Java releases is
important, having a stable, downloadable binary release is definitely
important for acceptance.
Sean

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Johnson, Scott <SJohnson@onsite3.com> wrote:

> Please do commit 2.3.2 as a release that "one can just download".
>
> I have seen multiple cases where the lack of a more up-to-date stable
> release of Lucene.NET has slowed corporate adoption and introduced
> needless version incompatibilities.  This release would help push our
> development partners and toolkit vendors towards using the latest
> technology.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 6:54 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 2.4.0
>
> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> The bug(LUCENENET-106) carried over from v2.1 to v2.3.1 and v2.3.2,   a
> newly discovered one(LUCENENET-164)    and an improvement(LUCENENET-160
> -
> since there are a lot of exceptions while checking whether a string is a
> real-number or not) are waiting to be fixed.
>
> And there is also no stable release for Lucene.Net community after
> v2.0.0.4 where one can just download and use Lucene.Net without
> searching the JIRA issues and applying some patches(like I do).
>
>
>
> Therefore, I would prefer,first, to commit a version
> ready-to-release(2.3.2) and then, while dealing with the
> apache-release-process, continue with the development of the v2.4
>
>
>
> In the mean time, try to keep yourself alive J
>
>
>
>
>
> DIGY.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:19 PM
>
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> Subject: 2.4.0
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I've been converting the 2.3.2 code to 2.4.0 and anticipate having a
> clean
>
> build by Monday AM.  There will be bugs, I'm sure.  Also, there are some
> new
>
> classes that I've only stubbed out, and some issues I've identified that
>
> would be best hashed out (by the community) prior to addressing.
>
>
>
> I am curious how we should proceed to work on the 2.4.0 conversion.
> Should
>
> we tag 2.3.2 and have the 2.4.0 code be HEAD?  Is there a better-suited
>
> approach?
>
>
>
> I would like to get this code into SVN *somewhere* (in case I get hit by
> a
>
> bus, laptop in hand).  Honestly, I want to preserve our momentum and be
>
> prepared to work on the Lucene.Net 3.0 version as it becomes available
> (or
>
> sooner...).
>
>
>
> Please respond with any thoughts/ideas?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message