lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Date Mon, 09 May 2011 20:28:51 GMT
* but the bug existed in older *

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Michael Herndon <mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> wrote:

> The government tends to work in this fashion of wanting security and
> critical bug updates, but are generally unwilling to upgrade underlying
> platform to a newer major version.
>
> An example: security vulnerability patched in later versions of lucene.netthat are compile
on .NET 3.5+ but the bug was exist in order versions.
>
> They would want the patch back-ported in a version that supported .Net 2.0
> because of the perceived cost in upgrading the rest of the software to a
> newer version of .net.
>
> I'm all for pushing people forward (I tend to use var and mixins myself).
>
> But it might be wise to think on a strategy that allows room for back
> porting any critical updates and supporting those till date/year x (though
> no longer than 2 years at most) to give people breathing room and avoiding
> panic.
>
> - Michael
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll start a more official vote thread to finalize our stance. I think the
>> general consensus is "yes to var", but that might just be my bias talking.
>>
>> Re: Government projects and new tech.. There is nothing stopping
>> conservative organizations from using our previous releases. Building from
>> source or using the bleeding edge is not a smart tactic for anyone who
>> cares
>> about stability, government or otherwise.
>>
>> -T
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Michael Herndon <
>> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Let me know once this is a concrete answer. It needs to go on the wiki
>> and
>> > tweeted and even blogged about.
>> >
>> > There will most likely be some push back, especially if anyone is using
>> > Lucene.Net inside of government projects.  They always take forever in
>> > letting you develop with the latest stable technologies.
>> >
>> > - Michael
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The new C# features are committed only to 2.9.4g branch. 2.9.4 can
>> still
>> > be
>> > > built targeting .NET 2.0.
>> > > We can continue to support both version in parallel (in terms of bug
>> > fixes
>> > > such as LUCENENET-172 & LUCENENET-413, maybe LUCENENET-266) and
>> declare
>> > that
>> > > 2.9.4 will be the last version supporting 2.0 framework.
>> > >
>> > > DIGY
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
>> > > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:06 PM
>> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var
>> > >
>> > > Using var is wonderful and great. We'll hopefully do doing a lot of
>> > > refactoring in the near future. var makes refactoring easier.
>> > >
>> > > I think we've committed fairly strongly to moving past 2.0 support.
>> AFAIK
>> > > the current trunk won't build under 2.0 anyhow (or am I mistaken, DIGY
>> > used
>> > > HashSet<T> in a recent patch, which is 3.5 or higher, and all the
>> > solutions
>> > > I committed in the recent directory updates were VS2010, and all the
>> > csproj
>> > > files updated to target 4.0). So, I don't see any reason to maintain
>> 2.0
>> > > compatibility... The 4.0 runtime offers so many benefits over previous
>> > > versions that, IMO, everyone who writes .NET apps should be working
>> hard
>> > to
>> > > migrate forward to 4.0 if they aren't already there.
>> > >
>> > > We can help the community along by giving them one more good reason to
>> > > switch to a better runtime.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Troy
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Aaron Powell <me@aaron-powell.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Yes it's a C# 3 feature, but the C# 3 compiler (shipped in VS 2008)
>> can
>> > > > compile C# 2.0 and C# 3.0 assemblies.
>> > > > Quick test: http://www.aaron-powell.com/get/var-csharp-2.PNG
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't have VS 2008 though, this test was done with VS 2010 using
>> the
>> > > > multitargetting features
>> > > >
>> > > > Aaron Powell
>> > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team
>> > > > Member | FunnelWeb Team Member
>> > > >
>> > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
>> aaron.l.powell |
>> > > > MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
>> > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:32 PM
>> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ~Prescott Nasser
>> > > > prescott.nasser@hotmail.com
>> > > > 650.208.4205
>> > > >
>> > > > It's a 3.0 keyword, can't be used pre C# 3.0
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > From: me@aaron-powell.com
>> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > > Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 07:28:36 +0000
>> > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My understanding of the 'var' keyword is just C# syntactic sugar,
>> > which
>> > > > the compiler will translate into the actual CLR type for variable
>> > > > assignment, so the compiler is capable of compiling CLR 2.0
>> assemblies
>> > > > anyway.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Aaron Powell
>> > > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team Member
|
>> > > > FunnelWeb Team Member
>> > > > >
>> > > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
>> aaron.l.powell
>> > |
>> > > > MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
>> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:56 PM
>> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think that is going to depend on if we are continuing .net
2.0 /
>> C#
>> > > 2.0
>> > > > support or dropping it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Prescott Nasser <
>> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

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