My ambivalence has to do with uncertainties, mostly. I don't have a clear idea of what will change. It seems like very little, but there is some overhead.
It still seems like a good move regardless of what I don't know. On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > What are your ambivalencies, Ted? I'm a little split myself, but all of my > "cons" > are very fuzzy and hard to articulate (mainly around timing). > > Could you spell out why your +1 is any weaker than it could be? > > -jake > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I am a bit ambivalent, but net +1 on this. The deciding factor for me is > > that it makes it easier to express the sub-projects. > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > 1. We'd like to organize several subprojects we wish to introduce > > (Core, > > > NLP, Recommenders/Taste, Ports - C++, etc.) that wouldn't really fit as > > > Lucene subprojects. > > > > > > And the collections package, vectors, verification and evaluation > > > code, potential test data sets... yes, makes sense to make it a TLP. I > > > don't think Lucene folks will mind -- it's not like Mahout is going to > > > depart from using Lucene/ Hadoop, etc. > > > > > > Not that my voice counts much here, but +1 to the idea. > > > > > > Dawid > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ted Dunning, CTO > > DeepDyve > > > -- Ted Dunning, CTO DeepDyve
