incubator-connectors-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release?
Date Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:46:37 GMT
If you can claim "well supported" for the web connector, you certainly
should be able to claim it for the RSS connector.  You could also
reasonably include the JDBC connector because it does not require a
proprietary system to test.

But if your definition is that tests exist for all the "well
supported" ones, somebody has some work to do.  I'd like to see a plan
on how we get from where we are now to a more comprehensive set of
tests.  I've gotten qBase to agree to let me have access to their Q/A
infrastructure (which used to be MetaCarta's), but that's only going
to be helpful for diagnosing problems and doing development, not for
automated tests that anyone can run.

Karl

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jack Krupansky
<jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> And one of the issues on the list should be to define the "well-supported"
> connectors for 0.5 (or whatever) as opposed to the "code is there and
> thought to work, you are on your own for testing/support" connectors. Longer
> term, "we" should get most/all connectors into the well-supported category,
> but I wouldn't use that as the bar for even 1.0.
>
> My personal minimum "well-supported" connector list for a 0.5 would be file
> system, web, and SharePoint*.
>
> * Oh... there is the issue of SharePoint 2010 or whatever the latest is, but
> current MCF support should be good enough for a 0.5 release, I think.
>
> (Got to keep up with Google Connectors!)
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:28 AM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release?
>
> I'm in favor of a release.  I'm not sure, though, what the release
> parameters ought to be.  I think the minimum is that we need to build
> a release infrastructure and plan, set up a release process, and
> decide what the release packaging should look like (zip's, tar's,
> sources, deliverables) and where the javadoc will be published online.
> (It's possible that we may, for instance, decide to change the way
> the ant build scripts work to make it easier for people to build the
> proprietary connectors after the fact, for instance.  Or we could
> claim that the release is just the sources, either way.)
>
> After that, we need to figure out what tickets we still want done
> before the release occurs.  I'd argue for more testing, and I'm also
> trying to figure out issues pertaining to Documentum and FileNet,
> because these connectors require sidecar processes that are not well
> supported in the example.  We could go substantially beyond that, but
> I agree with Jack that 0.1 would be useful if we only get that far.
>
> Thoughts?
> Karl
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jack Krupansky
> <jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>>
>> At least get a release 0.1 dry-run with code as-is out ASAP to flush out
>> release process issues. This would help to send out a message to the rest
>> of
>> the world that MCF is an available product rather than purely
>> development/incubation.
>>
>> Then come up with a list of issues that people strongly feel need to be
>> resolved before a true, squeaky-clean 1.0 release. Maybe that is the
>> original list of tasks, including better testing, but some
>> review/decisions
>> are probably needed. That will be the ultimate target.
>>
>> Then decide on a "close enough" subset of issues that would constitute
>> what
>> people consider a "solid beta" and target that as a release 0.5 and focus
>> on
>> that as the near-term target (after getting 0.1 out ASAP.) I personally do
>> not have any major issues on the top of my head that I would hold out as
>> "blockers" for a 0.5.
>>
>> Or, get 0.1 out and then move on to a 0.2, etc. on a monthly/bi-monthly
>> basis as progress is made.
>>
>> In short, get MCF as-is 0.1 out ASAP, have a very short list for MCF 0.5
>> to
>> get it out reasonably soon, and then revisit what 1.0 really means versus
>> 0.6, etc.
>>
>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Grant Ingersoll
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 8:38 AM
>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Release?
>>
>> Now that we have NTLM figured out and the Memex stuff behind us, how do
>> people feel about working towards a release?
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message