Re: 8 for 1.4
I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) We agreed that the best steps forward are to: 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) Does this sound reasonable to everybody? ryan On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Peter Wolanin >> Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT >> To: Grant Ingersoll >> >> Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 >> >> I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon >> - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as >> anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which >> means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the >> code to them as GPL. >> >> -Peter >> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll >> wrote: >>> >>> Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Grant Ingersoll >>>> Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT >>>> To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org >>>> Subject: 8 for 1.4 >>>> Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org >>>> >>>> Y'all, >>>> >>>> We're down to 8 open issues: >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true >>>> >>>> 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 release >>>> (so >>>> should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we have a >>>> few >>>> others. >>>> >>>> The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in a >>>> mo') and S-1449. >>>> >>>> On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even >>>> including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the original >>>> author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community have >>>> already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just >>>> submitting >>>> patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is >>>> awesome), >>>> I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless you >>>> count >>>> someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as maintenance) and >>>> I'll >>>> be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience to >>>> debug >>>> Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even >>>> have IE >>>> on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the wild. >>>> Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I suspect that >>>> is >>>> true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to >>>> 1.5. >>>> Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but >>>> keeping >>>> it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, >>>> assuming >>>> its gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I vote >>>> we >>>> remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. >>>> >>>> -Grant >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D. >> Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc. >> peter.wola...@acquia.com > > -- > Grant Ingersoll > http://www.lucidimagination.com/ > > Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using > Solr/Lucene: > http://www.lucidimagination.com/search > >
Re: 8 for 1.4
Sounds very reasonable to me. I hate to see the release of 1.4 being hold up by Javascript browsers compatibility issues. Bill On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like > he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) > > We agreed that the best steps forward are to: > 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port > 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org > 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) > 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) > > Does this sound reasonable to everybody? > > ryan > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll > wrote: > > Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Peter Wolanin > >> Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT > >> To: Grant Ingersoll > >> > >> Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 > >> > >> I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon > >> - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as > >> anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which > >> means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the > >> code to them as GPL. > >> > >> -Peter > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. > >>> > >>> Begin forwarded message: > >>> > >>>> From: Grant Ingersoll > >>>> Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT > >>>> To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org > >>>> Subject: 8 for 1.4 > >>>> Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> Y'all, > >>>> > >>>> We're down to 8 open issues: > >>>> > >>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true > >>>> > >>>> 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 release > >>>> (so > >>>> should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we have > a > >>>> few > >>>> others. > >>>> > >>>> The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in a > >>>> mo') and S-1449. > >>>> > >>>> On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even > >>>> including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the > original > >>>> author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community have > >>>> already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just > >>>> submitting > >>>> patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is > >>>> awesome), > >>>> I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless you > >>>> count > >>>> someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as maintenance) and > >>>> I'll > >>>> be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience to > >>>> debug > >>>> Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even > >>>> have IE > >>>> on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the > wild. > >>>> Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I suspect > that > >>>> is > >>>> true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to > >>>> 1.5. > >>>> Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but > >>>> keeping > >>>> it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, > >>>> assuming > >>>> its gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I > vote > >>>> we > >>>> remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. > >>>> > >>>> -Grant > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D. > >> Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc. > >> peter.wola...@acquia.com > > > > -- > > Grant Ingersoll > > http://www.lucidimagination.com/ > > > > Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using > > Solr/Lucene: > > http://www.lucidimagination.com/search > > > > >
Re: 8 for 1.4
Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know what else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their changes? Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) We agreed that the best steps forward are to: 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) Does this sound reasonable to everybody? ryan On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Wolanin Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT To: Grant Ingersoll Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the code to them as GPL. -Peter On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll > wrote: Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. Begin forwarded message: From: Grant Ingersoll Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: 8 for 1.4 Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Y'all, We're down to 8 open issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 release (so should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we have a few others. The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in a mo') and S-1449. On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the original author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community have already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just submitting patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is awesome), I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless you count someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as maintenance) and I'll be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience to debug Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even have IE on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the wild. Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I suspect that is true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to 1.5. Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but keeping it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, assuming its gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I vote we remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. -Grant -- Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D. Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc. peter.wola...@acquia.com -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
Re: 8 for 1.4
can we leave it in svn, but drop it from the release? logistically, what is the best way to do this? Make a branch now, remove it from /trunk, after release copy it from the branch back into /trunk? That seems like the best way to kick the can down the road. I agree an off-the-shelf apache license jquery client is great. ryan On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know what > else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep it > in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their changes? > Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. > > On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > >> I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like >> he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) >> >> We agreed that the best steps forward are to: >> 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port >> 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org >> 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) >> 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) >> >> Does this sound reasonable to everybody? >> >> ryan >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll >> wrote: >>> >>> Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Peter Wolanin >>>> Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT >>>> To: Grant Ingersoll >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 >>>> >>>> I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon >>>> - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as >>>> anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which >>>> means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the >>>> code to them as GPL. >>>> >>>> -Peter >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Grant Ingersoll >>>>>> Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT >>>>>> To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: 8 for 1.4 >>>>>> Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Y'all, >>>>>> >>>>>> We're down to 8 open issues: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true >>>>>> >>>>>> 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 release >>>>>> (so >>>>>> should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we have >>>>>> a >>>>>> few >>>>>> others. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in a >>>>>> mo') and S-1449. >>>>>> >>>>>> On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even >>>>>> including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the >>>>>> original >>>>>> author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community have >>>>>> already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just >>>>>> submitting >>>>>> patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is >>>>>> awesome), >>>>>> I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless you >>>>>> count >>>>>> someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as maintenance) and >>>>>> I'll >>>>>> be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience to >>>>>> debug >>>>>> Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even >>>>>> have IE >>>>>> on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the >>>>>> wild. >>>>>> Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I suspect >>>>>> that >>>>>> is >>>>>> true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to >>>>>> 1.5. >>>>>> Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but >>>>>> keeping >>>>>> it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, >>>>>> assuming >>>>>> its gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I >>>>>> vote >>>>>> we >>>>>> remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Grant >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D. >>>> Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc. >>>> peter.wola...@acquia.com >>> >>> -- >>> Grant Ingersoll >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/ >>> >>> Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using >>> Solr/Lucene: >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search >>> >>> > > -- > Grant Ingersoll > http://www.lucidimagination.com/ > > Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using > Solr/Lucene: > http://www.lucidimagination.com/search > >
Re: 8 for 1.4
Dropping it completely from 1.4 seems a little too drastic to me, since the problem is with IE8 only. Bill On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > can we leave it in svn, but drop it from the release? logistically, > what is the best way to do this? Make a branch now, remove it from > /trunk, after release copy it from the branch back into /trunk? > > That seems like the best way to kick the can down the road. I agree > an off-the-shelf apache license jquery client is great. > > ryan > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Grant Ingersoll > wrote: > > Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know > what > > else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep > it > > in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their > changes? > > Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. > > > > On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > > > >> I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like > >> he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) > >> > >> We agreed that the best steps forward are to: > >> 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port > >> 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org > >> 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) > >> 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) > >> > >> Does this sound reasonable to everybody? > >> > >> ryan > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. > >>> > >>> Begin forwarded message: > >>> > >>>> From: Peter Wolanin > >>>> Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT > >>>> To: Grant Ingersoll > >>>> > >>>> Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 > >>>> > >>>> I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon > >>>> - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as > >>>> anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which > >>>> means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the > >>>> code to them as GPL. > >>>> > >>>> -Peter > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll > > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. > >>>>> > >>>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>>> > >>>>>> From: Grant Ingersoll > >>>>>> Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT > >>>>>> To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org > >>>>>> Subject: 8 for 1.4 > >>>>>> Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Y'all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We're down to 8 open issues: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 > release > >>>>>> (so > >>>>>> should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we > have > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> few > >>>>>> others. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in > a > >>>>>> mo') and S-1449. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even > >>>>>> including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the > >>>>>> original > >>>>>> author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community > have > >>>>>> already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just > >>>>>> submitting > >>>>>> patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is > >>>>>> awesome), > >>>>>> I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless > you > >>>>>
Re: 8 for 1.4
Grant Ingersoll schrieb: Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know what else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their changes? Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. concerning GPL: The message from the drupal guys is that the code altered that much from initial solrjs that they think it's legally acceptable to get their new code out under GPL and "only" mention that it was inspired by the still existing Apache License solrjs. Sounds reasonable for me but I have few experience with this kind of legal issues. So what do you think? regards, matthias On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) We agreed that the best steps forward are to: 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) Does this sound reasonable to everybody? ryan On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Wolanin Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT To: Grant Ingersoll Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the code to them as GPL. -Peter On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. Begin forwarded message: From: Grant Ingersoll Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: 8 for 1.4 Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Y'all, We're down to 8 open issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 release (so should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we have a few others. The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in a mo') and S-1449. On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the original author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community have already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just submitting patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is awesome), I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless you count someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as maintenance) and I'll be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience to debug Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even have IE on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the wild. Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I suspect that is true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to 1.5. Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but keeping it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, assuming its gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I vote we remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. -Grant -- Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D. Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc. peter.wola...@acquia.com -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
Re: 8 for 1.4
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Matthias Epheser < matthias.ephe...@indoqa.com> wrote: > Grant Ingersoll schrieb: > >> Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know >> what else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep >> it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their >> changes? Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped >> up. >> > concerning GPL: > > The message from the drupal guys is that the code altered that much from > initial solrjs that they think it's legally acceptable to get their new code > out under GPL and "only" mention that it was inspired by the still existing > Apache License solrjs. > > Sounds reasonable for me but I have few experience with this kind of legal > issues. So what do you think? > I'm no legal expert but I guess a move to GPL means that Solr won't be able to distribute it ever (unless it is dual-licensed into ASL as well). This is off-topic but I'm curious as to how Drupal is using SolrJS. Are they exposing their Solr servers to the public so that it can be accessed directly through Javascript? That would be a bad idea. -- Regards, Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
Re: 8 for 1.4
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Matthias Epheser wrote: Grant Ingersoll schrieb: Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know what else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their changes? Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. concerning GPL: The message from the drupal guys is that the code altered that much from initial solrjs that they think it's legally acceptable to get their new code out under GPL and "only" mention that it was inspired by the still existing Apache License solrjs. Sounds reasonable for me but I have few experience with this kind of legal issues. So what do you think? Oh, it's legally fine. The ASL let's you do pretty much whatever you want. But that is pretty much the point. You're taking code with no restrictions on it and putting a whole slew of them back in, preventing Solr from ever distributing it in the future. Something about that stinks to me. There is a pretty large reason why we do our work at the ASF and not under GPL. I won't go into it here, but suffice it to say one can go read volumes of backstory on this elsewhere by searching for GPL vs ASL (or BSD). Furthermore, Matthias, it may be the case in the future that all that work you did for SolrJS may not even be accessible to you, the original author, under the GPL terms, depending on the company (many, many companies explicitly forbid GPL), etc. that you work for. Is that what you want? Also, they can't call it SolrJS, though, as that is the name of our version.
Re: 8 for 1.4
On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Bill Au wrote: Dropping it completely from 1.4 seems a little too drastic to me, since the problem is with IE8 only. Yeah, but the last patch had doubts about IE7, too. Bill, is there any chance you could try out the patch and test it and apply it? I'd like to see it released too, as then it will attract more attention, otherwise, we can remove it from just this release. Bill On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: can we leave it in svn, but drop it from the release? logistically, what is the best way to do this? Make a branch now, remove it from /trunk, after release copy it from the branch back into /trunk? That seems like the best way to kick the can down the road. I agree an off-the-shelf apache license jquery client is great. ryan On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know what else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their changes? Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) We agreed that the best steps forward are to: 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) Does this sound reasonable to everybody? ryan On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll > wrote: Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Wolanin Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT To: Grant Ingersoll Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the code to them as GPL. -Peter On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. Begin forwarded message: From: Grant Ingersoll Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: 8 for 1.4 Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Y'all, We're down to 8 open issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 release (so should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we have a few others. The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in a mo') and S-1449. On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the original author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community have already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just submitting patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is awesome), I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless you count someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as maintenance) and I'll be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience to debug Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even have IE on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the wild. Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I suspect that is true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to 1.5. Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but keeping it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, assuming its gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I vote we remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. -Grant -- Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D. Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc. peter.wola...@acquia.com -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
Re: 8 for 1.4
It might not be proper to use the name "Solr", because it is really "Apache Solr". At a minimum, it is misleading to use an Apache project name on GPL'ed code. I agree that changing to GPL is a bad idea. I've worked at eight or nine companies since the GPL was created, and GPL'ed code was forbidden at every one of them. GPL is where code goes to die. wunder On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Matthias Epheser wrote: Grant Ingersoll schrieb: Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know what else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their changes? Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. concerning GPL: The message from the drupal guys is that the code altered that much from initial solrjs that they think it's legally acceptable to get their new code out under GPL and "only" mention that it was inspired by the still existing Apache License solrjs. Sounds reasonable for me but I have few experience with this kind of legal issues. So what do you think? Oh, it's legally fine. The ASL let's you do pretty much whatever you want. But that is pretty much the point. You're taking code with no restrictions on it and putting a whole slew of them back in, preventing Solr from ever distributing it in the future. Something about that stinks to me. There is a pretty large reason why we do our work at the ASF and not under GPL. I won't go into it here, but suffice it to say one can go read volumes of backstory on this elsewhere by searching for GPL vs ASL (or BSD). Furthermore, Matthias, it may be the case in the future that all that work you did for SolrJS may not even be accessible to you, the original author, under the GPL terms, depending on the company (many, many companies explicitly forbid GPL), etc. that you work for. Is that what you want? Also, they can't call it SolrJS, though, as that is the name of our version.
Re: 8 for 1.4
I will try out the patch and test it and report back here. Stay tuned... Bill On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Bill Au wrote: > > Dropping it completely from 1.4 seems a little too drastic to me, since >> the >> problem is with IE8 only. >> > > Yeah, but the last patch had doubts about IE7, too. Bill, is there any > chance you could try out the patch and test it and apply it? > > I'd like to see it released too, as then it will attract more attention, > otherwise, we can remove it from just this release. > > > Bill >> >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: >> >> can we leave it in svn, but drop it from the release? logistically, >>> what is the best way to do this? Make a branch now, remove it from >>> /trunk, after release copy it from the branch back into /trunk? >>> >>> That seems like the best way to kick the can down the road. I agree >>> an off-the-shelf apache license jquery client is great. >>> >>> ryan >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Grant Ingersoll >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know >>>> >>> what >>> >>>> else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep >>>> >>> it >>> >>>> in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their >>>> >>> changes? >>> >>>> Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. >>>> >>>> On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: >>>> >>>> I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like >>>>> he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) >>>>> >>>>> We agreed that the best steps forward are to: >>>>> 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port >>>>> 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org >>>>> 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) >>>>> 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) >>>>> >>>>> Does this sound reasonable to everybody? >>>>> >>>>> ryan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Peter Wolanin >>>>>>> Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT >>>>>>> To: Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon >>>>>>> - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as >>>>>>> anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which >>>>>>> means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the >>>>>>> code to them as GPL. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll < >>>>>>> gsing...@apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>>>> Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT >>>>>>>>> To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: 8 for 1.4 >>>>>>>>> Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Y'all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We're down to 8 open issues: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&
Re: 8 for 1.4
I just did some testing with the reuters example in the trunk. The code in the trunk now does not work for both IE7 and IE8. I tried the patch from 8/14 but that does not work for IE8 (and IE7). However, Eric Pugh had indicated in Jira that he has code that works for both IE7 and IE8. I have verified that his site http://www.newswise.com/search does work for both. I have ask Eric in the Jira if he can come up with a patch this week. I think that's our best bet but I don't think this bug should block the release of 1.4. So if there is not patch this week I think SolrJS should be removed from 1.4. Bill On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Bill Au wrote: > I will try out the patch and test it and report back here. Stay tuned... > > Bill > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > >> >> On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Bill Au wrote: >> >> Dropping it completely from 1.4 seems a little too drastic to me, since >>> the >>> problem is with IE8 only. >>> >> >> Yeah, but the last patch had doubts about IE7, too. Bill, is there any >> chance you could try out the patch and test it and apply it? >> >> I'd like to see it released too, as then it will attract more attention, >> otherwise, we can remove it from just this release. >> >> >> Bill >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Ryan McKinley >>> wrote: >>> >>> can we leave it in svn, but drop it from the release? logistically, >>>> what is the best way to do this? Make a branch now, remove it from >>>> /trunk, after release copy it from the branch back into /trunk? >>>> >>>> That seems like the best way to kick the can down the road. I agree >>>> an off-the-shelf apache license jquery client is great. >>>> >>>> ryan >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Grant Ingersoll >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't know >>>>> >>>> what >>>> >>>>> else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this release, but keep >>>>> >>>> it >>>> >>>>> in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others to submit their >>>>> >>>> changes? >>>> >>>>> Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone else will have stepped up. >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I just discussed this off-line with Matthias. It does not look like >>>>>> he has the time to give this much attention now. (nor do I) >>>>>> >>>>>> We agreed that the best steps forward are to: >>>>>> 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port >>>>>> 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org >>>>>> 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release) >>>>>> 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache) >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this sound reasonable to everybody? >>>>>> >>>>>> ryan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Peter Wolanin >>>>>>>> Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT >>>>>>>> To: Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at >>>>>>>> Drupalcon >>>>>>>> - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as >>>>>>>> anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the >>>>>>>> code to them as GPL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll <
Re: 8 for 1.4
Hi all, I only just now discovered this thread on the future of SolrJS. I'm one of the Drupal developers that worked on the SolrJS fork that we call AJAX Solr. The code is up at http://github.com/evolvingweb/AJAX-Solr Before I address some of the concerns that came up earlier in the thread, I'd just like to thank Matthias and any contributors for their work on SolrJS, which provided an excellent API and framework in which to add more features and improve existing ones. Now: why did we fork SolrJS instead of patching? A fork was preferable for two reasons. (1) we would have had to make a lot of patches and (2) we needed the code to be licensed under GPL in order to publish it on drupal.org, which is the one and only place Drupal developers go to share code. As to (1), it is entirely possible some of our patches would not have been accepted, even though they are useful to us, so it would have probably been inevitable that we start a fork. As we were hacking SolrJS for one of our clients, not for its own right, we also got quite far from the original code, so writing atomic patches would have taken months (we don't work full-time on this). As to (2), AJAX Solr is currently tri-licensed as GPL v2, ASL v2, and MIT. We don't really care about the license. It's GPL v2 for drupal.org, ASL v2 for consistency with SolrJS, and MIT for consistency with Ruby on Rails, for which we hope to one day release a plugin, as we have done for Drupal (the Drupal module will be released this weekend). If it were up to me, I'd just make the code public domain. I'm not religious about licences. We set up the GitHub account so that people could contribute code there, under all three licenses, instead of contributing code at drupal.org (only GPL), or apache.org (only ASL?). I will not accept a patch unless I can release it under those three licenses. I think this will avoid any licensing issues and address the licensing concerns I read earlier in the thread. RE: Shalin Shekhar Mangar: "Are they exposing their Solr servers to the public so that it can be accessed directly through Javascript?" In our Drupal module, we provide the option to either expose the Solr server to the public (not recommended), or to proxy requests through Drupal (recommended) or even a custom proxy. Our Drupal proxy filters the request prepared by the JavaScript, returning only those fields that the administrator set as publicly accessible, and limiting the number of rows returned to the administrator-set maximum. Also, as to the name, a few things: one of our developers, when we were still thinking of patching SolrJS, created a module on drupal.org called "solrjs". As we won't be using SolrJS, we will rename that appropriately. If anyone objects to the name "AJAX Solr" please let me know. I don't think it's a problem to have "Solr" in the name; it would be terribly confusing if it didn't. Thanks, James P.S.: Since I just joined the list, I didn't know how to reply to the thread with all the thread history attached. Sorry if this causes problems with the mailing list.
Re: 8 for 1.4
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM, James McKinney wrote: > Hi all, I only just now discovered this thread on the future of > SolrJS. I'm one of the Drupal developers that worked on the SolrJS > fork that we call AJAX Solr. The code is up at > http://github.com/evolvingweb/AJAX-Solr > > Before I address some of the concerns that came up earlier in the > thread, I'd just like to thank Matthias and any contributors for their > work on SolrJS, which provided an excellent API and framework in which > to add more features and improve existing ones. > > Now: why did we fork SolrJS instead of patching? A fork was preferable > for two reasons. (1) we would have had to make a lot of patches and > (2) we needed the code to be licensed under GPL in order to publish it > on drupal.org, which is the one and only place Drupal developers go to > share code. > > As to (1), it is entirely possible some of our patches would not have > been accepted, even though they are useful to us, so it would have > probably been inevitable that we start a fork. As we were hacking > SolrJS for one of our clients, not for its own right, we also got > quite far from the original code, so writing atomic patches would have > taken months (we don't work full-time on this). > > As to (2), AJAX Solr is currently tri-licensed as GPL v2, ASL v2, and > MIT. We don't really care about the license. It's GPL v2 for > drupal.org, ASL v2 for consistency with SolrJS, and MIT for > consistency with Ruby on Rails, for which we hope to one day release a > plugin, as we have done for Drupal (the Drupal module will be released > this weekend). If it were up to me, I'd just make the code public > domain. I'm not religious about licences. > > We set up the GitHub account so that people could contribute code > there, under all three licenses, instead of contributing code at > drupal.org (only GPL), or apache.org (only ASL?). I will not accept a > patch unless I can release it under those three licenses. I think this > will avoid any licensing issues and address the licensing concerns I > read earlier in the thread. > > RE: Shalin Shekhar Mangar: "Are they exposing their Solr servers to > the public so that it can be accessed directly through Javascript?" In > our Drupal module, we provide the option to either expose the Solr > server to the public (not recommended), or to proxy requests through > Drupal (recommended) or even a custom proxy. Our Drupal proxy filters > the request prepared by the JavaScript, returning only those fields > that the administrator set as publicly accessible, and limiting the > number of rows returned to the administrator-set maximum. > > Also, as to the name, a few things: one of our developers, when we > were still thinking of patching SolrJS, created a module on drupal.org > called "solrjs". As we won't be using SolrJS, we will rename that > appropriately. If anyone objects to the name "AJAX Solr" please let me > know. I don't think it's a problem to have "Solr" in the name; it > would be terribly confusing if it didn't. > > Thanks, > > James > > P.S.: Since I just joined the list, I didn't know how to reply to the > thread with all the thread history attached. Sorry if this causes > problems with the mailing list. > Hi James, You almost gave me heart attack by using that subject line "Re: 8 for 1.4". I remember checking a few minutes ago and it was just 4 issues remaining. I can't wait for 1.4 to be released officially. Maybe "Re: 4 for 1.4" would be more appropriate. :) -- "Good Enough" is not good enough. To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Quality First. Measure Twice. Cut Once.
Fwd: 8 for 1.4
Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. Begin forwarded message: From: Grant Ingersoll Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: 8 for 1.4 Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Y'all, We're down to 8 open issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 release (so should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we have a few others. The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in a mo') and S-1449. On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the original author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community have already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just submitting patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is awesome), I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless you count someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as maintenance) and I'll be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience to debug Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even have IE on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the wild. Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I suspect that is true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to 1.5. Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but keeping it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, assuming its gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I vote we remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. -Grant
Re: 8 for 1.4
On Sep 27, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: : > On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even including : > this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the original author and ... : > true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to 1.5. : > Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but keeping it : > in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, assuming its : > gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I vote we : > remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. If we leave SolrJS in the release, then i can't imagine any reason why the patch in SOLR-1294 shouldn't be committed ... no one is going to step up and help maintain it if we aren't committing the patches that people offer to improve it. Yes, but no committers have stepped up and said whether the patch is any good. Ryan mentioned taking it, but that was two weeks ago. That said: as a client that isn't tightly coupled to the Solr Interals, if there's already a better SolrJS fork out there that has a community actively maintaining it, then I don't see a strong reason for us to start including SolrJS in 1.4. Summary... +0 on SolrJS being in 1.4 +1 on SOLR-1294 being in 1.4 if SolrJS is in 1.4 -Hoss
Re: 8 for 1.4
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Yes, but no committers have stepped up and said whether the patch is any > good. The last thing I saw about the last actual patch: """this patch should enable the usage of IE8 with solrjs Tho, I didn't get it working with IE7 yet..""" I think that might be an improvement, but it's tough to tell - I don't know if trunk was broken for IE6 & 7 and they have a bigger market share than 8. But frankly having something that doesn't work for either IE or Firefox doesn't seem acceptable for release. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com
Fwd: 8 for 1.4
Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread. Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Wolanin Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT To: Grant Ingersoll Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4 I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the code to them as GPL. -Peter On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: Argh, this was meant for solr-dev. Begin forwarded message: From: Grant Ingersoll Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: 8 for 1.4 Reply-To: solr-u...@lucene.apache.org Y'all, We're down to 8 open issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 release (so should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we have a few others. The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this in a mo') and S-1449. On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the original author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community have already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just submitting patches. While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is awesome), I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it (unless you count someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as maintenance) and I'll be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience to debug Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even have IE on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the wild. Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I suspect that is true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to 1.5. Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but keeping it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, assuming its gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I vote we remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. -Grant -- Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D. Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc. peter.wola...@acquia.com -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
Re: Fwd: 8 for 1.4
: > On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even including : > this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the original author and ... : > true for others too. At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be pushed to 1.5. : > Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but keeping it : > in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1, assuming its : > gotten some love in the meantime. If by then it has no love, I vote we : > remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there. If we leave SolrJS in the release, then i can't imagine any reason why the patch in SOLR-1294 shouldn't be committed ... no one is going to step up and help maintain it if we aren't committing the patches that people offer to improve it. That said: as a client that isn't tightly coupled to the Solr Interals, if there's already a better SolrJS fork out there that has a community actively maintaining it, then I don't see a strong reason for us to start including SolrJS in 1.4. Summary... +0 on SolrJS being in 1.4 +1 on SOLR-1294 being in 1.4 if SolrJS is in 1.4 -Hoss
