If we were just doing small discrete patches it would be fine to give them a
try but I think we are looking at taking the project in a new direction. Our
work will be experimental for a while so its easier to play around in a
fresh repository than convince them to commit something that partially
works.

Also looking at their forum, the last user submitted patch took a few weeks
to get committed and when the user uploaded an additional change it seems
that was ignored.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Merkl [mailto:h...@hmerkl.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:01 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Fork Sharpen

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
> >
>

Reply via email to