Wouldn't it be better to make such a decision only after it has shown that
working with db4o doesn't work well?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 03:57, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> +1 great name. I agree, we will probably need to make changes that are not
> generic enough for them.
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 4
The chat should never replace the list. This is just another channel
of communication for people who may prefer it that might never us a
mailing list.
Its also a decent tool for pair programming and conversing on
off-topic stuff with people that you working beside without
convoluting the mailing
different time zones, non-searchable content.
Definitely -1
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: mhern...@amptools.net [mailto:mhern...@amptools.net] On Behalf Of
Michael Herndon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:00 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] irc chanel
If there i
response from build list:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Michael Herndon
wrote:
> Also does anyone know of the existing tools that maybe available on the
> windows slave such as:
> ncover,
> ndepend,
> fxcop,
> msbuild,
> versions of the .net framework
> etc.
> (If these does not already exist
If there is not already a irc chanel in use, I'm keeping #lucene.net
open on irc.freenode.net
/join #lucene.net
+1 great name. I agree, we will probably need to make changes that are not
generic enough for them.
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:54:17 -0800
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Fork Sharpen
>
> Hey All,
>
> The discussion on Sharpen or other porting tools has been quiet so I think
> its time for
Hey All,
The discussion on Sharpen or other porting tools has been quiet so I think
its time for a vote. Background info here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-380
I propose forking Sharpen outside of ASF for use in our conversion and any
other java project.
The company that crea
