Re: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-09 Thread Craig R. McClanahan
+1 (back at home recovering from J1). Craig On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Ted Husted wrote: > Was there a post with a [VOTE] header? > > +1 > > I think Craig and Geir are tied up with Java One this week. > > Jon Stevens wrote: > > > > Re: Lucene being added as a Jakarta Project. > > > > 5 of 10 (n

Re: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-09 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
Did you consider that we were out of functional email reach? +1 from me - I haven't used it, but it comes highly recommended from a source I trust (besides you...) geir Jon Stevens wrote: > > Re: Lucene being added as a Jakarta Project. > > 5 of 10 (not counting Duncan) of the PMC members vot

Re: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-08 Thread Ted Husted
Was there a post with a [VOTE] header? +1 I think Craig and Geir are tied up with Java One this week. Jon Stevens wrote: > > Re: Lucene being added as a Jakarta Project. > > 5 of 10 (not counting Duncan) of the PMC members voted +1. The rest haven't > voted (shame on you). Can I please get t

Re: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-06 Thread Jon Stevens
on 6/6/01 6:02 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re: sourceforge; there are a number of differences. Has a community and a > relationship or affinity with other Jakarta projects are key > differentiators. Again, by the latter measure, Lucene is a slightly weak > Jakarta subproject (IM

RE: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-06 Thread Sam Ruby
Conor MacNeill wrote: > > Why? It seems that commons-sandbox is becoming a mini sourceforge. I thought > commons was about small independent reusable components. Lucene is an independent reusable component. There are many measures of size - lines of code, size of community, etc. By these measure

Re: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-06 Thread Sam Ruby
Jon Stevens wrote: > > Is 9 enough? +1 - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-06 Thread Conor MacNeill
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Do we have an initial list of committers? > > Unless it has a critical mass (read: three active developers), I would > prefer commons-sandbox over a full fledged project. Why? It seems that commons-sandbox is becoming a mini sourceforge. I thought

Re: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-06 Thread Jon Stevens
on 6/6/01 5:04 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do we have an initial list of committers? Sure... http://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=3922 > Unless it has a critical mass (read: three active developers), I would > prefer commons-sandbox over a full fledged project

Re: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-06 Thread Sam Ruby
Jon Stevens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Re: Lucene being added as a Jakarta Project. > > 5 of 10 (not counting Duncan) of the PMC members voted +1. The rest haven't > voted (shame on you). Can I please get the rest of the people to cast a > vote? Do we have an initial list of committers? Unle

Re: Lucene acceptance in Jakarta

2001-06-06 Thread Pier P. Fumagalli
Jon Stevens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Re: Lucene being added as a Jakarta Project. > > 5 of 10 (not counting Duncan) of the PMC members voted +1. The rest haven't > voted (shame on you). Can I please get the rest of the people to cast a > vote? Just downloaded, and I must admit that it seem