x27;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 su
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 ju
;>>>
>>>>>> 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)
>>>
>>>>> 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 (G
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
er 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
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
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 encoura
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
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:
> >>>
> >>
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 ta
er 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 m
er 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 potent
t;> 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 arou
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
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
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
p
: > 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 f
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/j
19 matches
Mail list logo