On 9/22/10 9:00 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> >>> I get your reasoning, but unfortunately, because you don't understand how >>> Maven works you don't realize why maintaining it downstream is not an >>> option. Sorry. >>> >> >> Seems very doable to me. A couple dudes get together and become the >> authority for Lucene/Solr Maven themselves. Apply to Mavens whatever >> process, make a website, throw a party, make maven artifacts. In a short >> time you will be known as the source of Maven artifacts for Lucene/Solr, >> sending out our signed jars to the masses. We don't need to do it. No >> one has said anything about the Maven process that locks us into doing it. >> > > Like I said, you don't get how it works. It's obvious by the comment.
No, I looked - that works. Your too concerned with iBiblio. > >> Comparing Maven support to code features is insane IMO. We are in the >> business of code in my opinion. Code and tagging code as a release - at >> most putting the release on the mirrors. > > So, if the large majority of people get Lucene through Maven would you feel > the same way? That would be great! There would be enough people into Maven to actually handle the support downstream! > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
