Definitely +1 (even) for non-MR patches. Otis
-- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:57:33 PM > Subject: Re: Community development was Re: [jira] Updated: (MAHOUT-4) Simple > prototype for Expectation Maximization (EM) > > Right, the question is more along the lines of would people rather see > patches committed even if they aren't in M/R form? It is a given in > my mind that at a minimum they have to compile and have reasonable > unit tests, etc. Taking this approach would allow people to put up > initial standard patches, and then give others room to improve > separately with M/R implementations, etc. > > Just trying to get at what people will find the most useful for > getting code that people can work on, extend, etc. > > -Grant > > > On Feb 14, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > > > > Patches should be for the continuous integration system and for the > > committers, not normally for users to use for building the code. They > > should either download a release or they should download the trunk. > > > > > > On 2/14/08 6:58 AM, "Goel, Ankur" wrote: > > > >>> This brings up an ... find patches? > >> > >> My vote is in favour having people check-out code directly instead of > >> finding patches. > > > > >
