lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Lucene Java -> Lucene Core
Date Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:18:20 GMT
One name that might work is "Lucene".

Let that mean the java version and slightly ambiguously refer to the entire
project depending on context.  Then use qualifiers
for things like lucene.net.

I would contend that we already have this usage and going with something
else will be a difficult uphill task.

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Steven A Rowe <sarowe@syr.edu> wrote:

> One small concern: "core" already means something within Lucene Java.
>
> So we'd have Lucene Core core (as opposed to contrib).
>
> Should cores have cores?  It seems against the will of universe somehow.
>
> Steve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:58 AM
> > To: general list
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] Lucene Java -> Lucene Core
> >
> > Hi Luceneers, esp. PMC and Committers,
> >
> > I'm in the process of reviewing our branding per the Trademarks committee
> > sending out requirements.   So, expect to see some changes to the website
> > and logos in the coming days as well as, potentially, a request for help.
> >
> > Per the Branding Requirements at
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs, I think we should stop
> > calling our core Java implementation Lucene Java, since Java is an Oracle
> > TM, and move to simply calling it Lucene Core or Lucene for Java.
> >
> > I'm inclined to call it Lucene Core or (Core, for short).  Most of us
> just
> > call it Lucene anyway, so the Core part really is only for navigation
> > purposes on the website.
> >
> > I'd like to discuss this for a day or two and then call a vote.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Grant
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message