chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gavin Cornwell <gavin.cornw...@alfresco.com>
Subject Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Date Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:29:43 GMT
Hi,

I have run through all the tests on our side and found a couple of minor issues that I addressed
yesterday (project settings and a progress issue).

There is still an Xcode warning/suggestion on the project settings (when using Xcode 5.1)
which caused a problem building with Xcode 5.0 so I’ve left them as they were for now. The
64 bit slice is being included in the binary so I think this will be fine for this release.

Unless you have a different opinion on the project settings I think we’re ready for the
0.3 release.

Regards,

Gavin



On 25 Mar 2014, at 15:24, Gavin Cornwell <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> There’s one more thing to check on our side before giving the green light for 0.3,
I will work on that tomorrow and let you know as soon as I can.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gavin
> 
> 
> On 25 Mar 2014, at 06:38, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Alright then. Just give me you OK when everything is ready for 0.3 from
>> your side. I will then do the release.
>> 
>> Whenever you are ready for the initial browser binding checkin please let
>> me know so that we can have a look and discuss the further approach :)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Lukas
>> 
>> On 3/24/14 11:14 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Sounds good to me, I just need to check here that there isn¹t anything
>>> else required for 0.3, the guy I need to ask is beck from holiday
>>> tomorrow so I¹ll send a response tomorrow if that¹s OK?
>>> 
>>> If you don¹t mind doing the release that is absolutely fine with me ;-)
>>> 
>>> Regarding the browser binding, I created the branch over the weekend and
>>> have merged the work I did previously into that locally. There is still
>>> some work to do before I¹m happy doing an initial commit, but I plan on
>>> doing that in the evenings this week so I should have something to
>>> contribute soon.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Gavin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21 Mar 2014, at 16:46, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Excellent thats also our opinion. However ACL write support is not on
>>>> our
>>>> list for the next weeks, so I would rather do a release now and then
>>>> concentrate on Browser Binding.
>>>> Do you want me to do the release? Please let me know how you want to
>>>> proceed.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Lukas
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/21/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think yes, we should target the 0.3 release without the browser
>>>>> binding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will probably need a 0.3 release sooner than 3-4 months (most likely
>>>>> in the next month) and I will only be able to work on the browser
>>>>> binding
>>>>> as a background task in my spare time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My preference therefore would be to finish your ACL write features and
>>>>> release that as 0.3 and then have a 0.4 release for the browser binding
>>>>> support.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gavin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 20 Mar 2014, at 13:01, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The main question is: Do we target a 0.3 release without browser
>>>>>> binding
>>>>>> or do we plan to get browser binding done first. From our side this
>>>>>> depends on the timeframe in which we can get this done. If we could
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> this done within lets say the next 2 to 3 months I would prefer to
>>>>>> bundle
>>>>>> everything together and release 0.3. If you think we need longer
than
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> should consider moving browser binding to 0.4. However we have a
>>>>>> strong
>>>>>> demand for browser binding and therefore plan to have at least one
>>>>>> person
>>>>>> working full-time on this topic.
>>>>>> The only other thing currently in our pipeline is write support for
>>>>>> ACLs.
>>>>>> We recently committed the parser for read support however write is
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> missing. We plan to do this also during the next weeks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 3/20/14 10:27 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Excellent, a 0.3 release would also be really useful for us too.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would suggest doing a release sooner rather than later, what
other
>>>>>>> implementation tasks are there from your side that would need
to be
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> before 0.3?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Gav
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 20 Mar 2014, at 07:58, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I agree that it would be more consistent to have only the
request
>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>> to cancel a request. I will change our code to use the request
>>>>>>>> objects
>>>>>>>> cancel method and then remove the stop parameter from the
library.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We had problems using Google hangout in the past, however
we could
>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> another try. Just let me know when you have setup the branch
and we
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> schedule a session.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We should also discuss the timeframe for the upcoming implementation
>>>>>>>> tasks
>>>>>>>> so that we can plan the Objective CMIS 0.3 release. We need
this new
>>>>>>>> release as early as possible so that we can get an approval
for it
>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 3/19/14 10:21 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I do see your point about the stop parameter being a
common
>>>>>>>>> paradigm
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> iOS, however, personally I would prefer that we remove
it,
>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> the request approach works. We then have one consistent
way to
>>>>>>>>> cancel
>>>>>>>>> operations across the whole library (the parameter approach
is only
>>>>>>>>> applicable to methods with progress).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Great to hear you're also interested in the browser binding.
I did
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> initial work a while ago so I need to sync it with the
recent
>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> I'll commit it in a branch as soon as I can.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I too think it would be a great idea to resurrect the
status
>>>>>>>>> meeting,
>>>>>>>>> even if it's just once a month. I will schedule something
once I've
>>>>>>>>> committed something. Can you remind me, are you guys
able to use
>>>>>>>>> Google
>>>>>>>>> Hangouts or would webex be a better choice?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Gavin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message