Developers List
Subject: Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
On Feb 23, 2005, at 10:55 AM, George Aroush wrote:
Hi folks,
1) Has all the required votes came in? Are we ready for the next
step? Is there anything more that I have to do?
We're done with the votes and ready to move on. Sorry I let
Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 2:04 PM
To: Lucene Developers List
Subject: Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
On Feb 23, 2005, at 10:55 AM, George Aroush wrote:
Hi folks,
1) Has all the required votes came in? Are we ready
George Aroush wrote:
Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene)
George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(0) rationale
Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene from Java
to C#. The
dotLucene.
Any thoughts on Lucene.Net/dotLucene package name are welcome.
Regards,
-- George
-Original Message-
From: Garrett Rooney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:22 AM
To: Lucene Developers List
Subject: Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
George Aroush wrote
Lucene.Net has my +1.
Other PMC members please cast your vote also.
As for Garrett's concerns, it is my understanding that dotLucene is not
based the previous Lucene.NET codebase. Though George mentions
Lookout, Beagle, and some other projects - are these projects using the
dotLucene
+1
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lucene Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
Lucene.Net has my +1.
Other PMC members please cast your vote also.
As for Garrett's concerns, it is my understanding that dotLucene is not
based the previous Lucene.NET codebase. Though George mentions Lookout,
Beagle, and some
+1
Otis
--- Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lucene.Net has my +1.
Other PMC members please cast your vote also.
As for Garrett's concerns, it is my understanding that dotLucene is
not
based the previous Lucene.NET codebase. Though George mentions
Lookout, Beagle, and some
I prefer dotLucene, because it will be less confusing for people new to
the project. In Lucene in Action I had to explicitly mention a dead
Lucene.NET project on SourceForge, so readers wouldn't mix it with the
other one called. ah, see, I don't know which one was dead and
which one was
George Aroush wrote:
Hi Garrett,
Thanks for your support.
No, the port of 1.4.0 and 1.4.3 of dotLucene is from the ground up and has
nothing to do with Lucene.Net 1.3. The logs on SourceForge.net shows this.
Excellent. I'm glad to hear it.
The conflicting question that I have is, Lucene.Net is a
George Aroush wrote:
Any thoughts on Lucene.Net/dotLucene package name are welcome.
I agree that Lucene.Net is a better name. It's more consistent with
Lucene Java and Lucene4c, the names for other ports of Lucene. I think
it's okay to reclaim the name of an abandonded project, especially if
On Thursday 17 February 2005 17:14, George Aroush wrote:
Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene)
+1
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Hi,
From: George Aroush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As for Lookout, Beagle, ets, I know for fact that Beagle,
Ascirum and .Text are using dotLucene, I don't know about
Lookout. Just do a Google them and you will see.
Lookout use Lucene.Net 1.3.3.1.
Pasha Bizhan
Hi,
From: Doug Cutting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only problem would be if someone else felt that the name
Lucene.Net was their property.
Read the license and look the source code.
Lucene.Net copyrighted to Apache Software Foundation.
Pasha Bizhan
http://lucenedotnet.com
+1
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
15 matches
Mail list logo
