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 > > >
