On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Karl Wettin wrote:
>
> 19 mar 2010 kl. 15.50 skrev Grant Ingersoll:
>
>> Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the following
>> resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then promote Mahout to
>> be a TLP.
>>
>> [] +1 I'm for Mahout
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> I'm willing to be convinced but what is the theoretical argument for this?
Rather the opposite - it's a practical argument gained through experience.
> I am all for interfaces *and* abstract classes. You write the API in
> terms of interfaces f
+1
-Yonik
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> [Take 2. I fixed the NOTICE file, but did not change the artifact
> generation issue for now.]
>
> Please review and vote for releasing Mahout 0.1. This is our first release
> and is all new code.
>
> The artifacts in are loca
