Re: Solr1.3 Freeze

[Ryan McKinley <ry...@gmail.com>]

(moved to solr-dev)

> Maybe we should call it lucene-2.4-solr.jar so as to drop the word  
> dev from it.
>

+1

or: lucene-2.4-${revision}-solr.jar?  that way it is easy to tell what  
svn version it came from

Re: Solr1.3 Freeze

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

A rose by any other name, is still the same, eh?  That being said, if  
it helps people in Solr adoption and makes them feel more comfortable  
using it, it's fine by me.

Not sure if we want to make the rev so prominent, might be a little  
confusing when 2.4.0 or 2.4.1 comes out.  We could have 2.4.0 and  
2.4.685641.  Should we put an "r" in front of it?  2.4.r685641 or is  
that just going throw people back under the bus in terms of  
management's "no unreleased" jars mentality, even if they are,  
officially released artifacts of the ASF?

On Aug 13, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote:

> (moved to solr-dev)
>
>> Maybe we should call it lucene-2.4-solr.jar so as to drop the word  
>> dev from it.
>>
>
> +1
>
> or: lucene-2.4-${revision}-solr.jar?  that way it is easy to tell  
> what svn version it came from