On 03/22/2010 at 2:30 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ryan McKinley
> wrote:
> > I'm confused... what is the need for a new name? The only place where
> > there is a conflict is in the top level svn tree...
>
> Agree, no need to re-brand.
Hmm, I've apparently misunder
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
> > I'm confused... what is the need for a new name? The only place where
> > there is a conflict is in the top level svn tree...
>
> Agree, no need to re-brand.
I don't see any need
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
> I'm confused... what is the need for a new name? The only place where
> there is a conflict is in the top level svn tree...
Agree, no need to re-brand.
> What about something general like:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev
> or
I'm confused... what is the need for a new name? The only place where
there is a conflict is in the top level svn tree...
What about something general like:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev
or
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/project
ryan
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Stev
What are the implications of this this new branding effort with the brands
for the existing Lucene and Solr? Will the names "Lucene" and "Solr" cease
in the mainstream in favor of a merged name?
Cheers,
Chris
On 3/22/10 11:02 AM, "Steven A Rowe" wrote:
> Now that Solr and Lucene live in the sa
