Fwd: 8 for 1.4

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Argh, this was meant for solr-dev.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>
> Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: 8 for 1.4
> Reply-To: solr-user@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

[Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> 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

Re: 8 for 1.4

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

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: Fwd: 8 for 1.4

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: > 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