On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I confess that the slf4j dependency in collections is a very strong >> local motivation to me, but it also seems right in principle. > > I just killed this BTW. (There was one dangling log statement... not > worth a dependency.)
Yes, thank you. My selfish short-term goal is to get a release with the log dependency removed out before Mahout 0.4 :-). > >> When we go TLP, we can organize this more coherently in svn, but for >> now we can leave it where it is, but fix up the poms. > > Actually it seems like this a valid subproject of a Mahout TLP in its > own right, if that would be a useful middle-ground status. I'm not trying to suggest anything different. I'm opposed to having 'separate committers', but I'm happy to have multiple releasable components all in the Mahout TLP. > >> This strikes me as consistent with the idea of marinating with >> possible intent that it would become its own thing some day. > > Yes it's already its own module, which helps manage it independently. > At the moment that means anyone can depend on it, and only it, via > Maven, which is 80% of the value. > > I think it probably needs a fair bit of API rethinking and cleanup to > truly stand as a general purpose and reusable component, but that can > happen. > No argument there. Practical point: it would be, all joking aside, good to make a very prompt release of this so that the rest of Mahout 0.4-SNAPSHOT could depend on it. If no one protests, I'll do the POM surgery in a couple of days.
