Wouldn't it be better to make such a decision only after it has shown that working with db4o doesn't work well?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 03:57, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > +1 great name. I agree, we will probably need to make changes that are not > generic enough for them. > > > > > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:54:17 -0800 > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Fork Sharpen > > > > Hey All, > > > > The discussion on Sharpen or other porting tools has been quiet so I > think > > its time for a vote. Background info here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-380 > > > > I propose forking Sharpen outside of ASF for use in our conversion and > any > > other java project. > > > > The company that created Sharpen (db4o) could accept patches however I > fear > > that the scope of our changes will be large enough that our goals will > not > > align with db4o's and using their trunk would be a burden. Also hopefully > > the fork project could attract more attention and contributions than the > > current obscure repository. > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours. > > Suggestions on where to host the fork and name for the fork encouraged. > > > > My name pick: Grindstone > > (as in what you use to sharpen) > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > >
