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 Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:18:32 GMT
Great!
Has anyone else had a chance to look at RC1 yet?  If not, should I
offer gift certificates or something to encourage participation? ;-)

Karl


On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
> I'll take a look, but it won't likely be until Tuesday (extended Turkey going on here!)
>
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
>
>> Uploaded RC1.
>> Karl
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A problem with the FileNet connector has caused me to build an RC1.
>>> It's uploading now.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jack Krupansky
>>> <jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>>>> That's a great leap forward... RC0 of ManifoldCF 0.1! That's a lot of the
>>>> hardest of the work.
>>>>
>>>> I'm busy on some other things right now, but maybe next week I can take a
>>>> look.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:00 PM
>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Release?
>>>>
>>>> While I was looking for a solution, an upload attempt succeeded!
>>>>
>>>> So there is now an RC0 out on people.apache.org/~kwright:
>>>>
>>>> [kwright@minotaur:~]$ ls -lt manifoldcf-0.1.*
>>>> -rw-r--r--  1 kwright  kwright         63 Nov 23 17:57
>>>> manifoldcf-0.1.tar.gz.md5
>>>> -rw-r--r--  1 kwright  kwright         60 Nov 23 17:57
>>>> manifoldcf-0.1.zip.md5
>>>> -rw-r--r--  1 kwright  kwright  158734230 Nov 23 17:55 manifoldcf-0.1.zip
>>>> -rw-r--r--  1 kwright  kwright  156742315 Nov 23 17:06 manifoldcf-0.1.tar.gz
>>>> [kwright@minotaur:~]$
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know what you think.
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The upload has failed repeatedly for me, so I'll clearly have to find
>>>>> another way.
>>>>> Karl
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm uploading a release candidate now.  But someone needs to feed
the
>>>>>> hamsters turning the wheels or something, because the upload speed
to
>>>>>> that machine is 51KB/sec, so it's going to take 3 hours to get the
>>>>>> candidate up there, if my network connection doesn't bounce in the
>>>>>> interim.  Is there any other place available?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 6:18 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've created a signing key, and checked in a KEYS file.  Apache
>>>>>>>> instructions for this are actually decent, so I didn't have
to make
>>>>>>>> much stuff up.  Glad about that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, sorry, have been in meetings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Last remaining release issue is getting the release files
to a
>>>>>>>> download mirror.  Maybe I can find some doc for that too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next steps would be to generate a candidate release which the
rest of us
>>>>>>> can download.  Put it up on people.apache.org/~YOURUSERNAME/...
and then
>>>>>>> send a note to the list saying where to locate it.  Rather than
call a vote
>>>>>>> right away, just ask us to check it out and try it as there will
likely be
>>>>>>> issues for the first release.  Once we all feel we have a decent
candidate,
>>>>>>> we can call a vote, which should be a formality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See http://apache.org/dev/#releases for more info.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The build changes are complete.  I removed the modules
level from the
>>>>>>>>> hierarchy because it served no useful purpose and complicated
matters.
>>>>>>>>>  The outer level build.xml now allows you build code,
docs, and run
>>>>>>>>> tests separately from one another, and gives you help
as a default.
>>>>>>>>> "ant image" builds you the deliverable .zip and tar.gz
files.  Online
>>>>>>>>> site has been polished so that it now contains complete
javadoc, as
>>>>>>>>> does the built and delivered .zip and tar.gz's.  In
short,  we *could*
>>>>>>>>> actually do a release now, if only we had (and incorporated)
the KEYS
>>>>>>>>> file I alluded to earlier, which I do not know how to
build or obtain.
>>>>>>>>>  I believe this needs to be both generated and registered.
 The site
>>>>>>>>> also needs to refer to a download location/list of mirrors
before it
>>>>>>>>> could go out the door.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Help? Grant?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hearing nothing, went ahead and made the port of
documentation to the
>>>>>>>>>> site official.  I also now include the generated
site in the release
>>>>>>>>>> tar.gz and .zip.
>>>>>>>>>> Issues still to address before release:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (1) source tar.gz and zip in outer-level build.xml,
which I will try
>>>>>>>>>> to address shortly.
>>>>>>>>>> (2) vehicle for release downloads, and naming thereof.
 In short,
>>>>>>>>>> where do I put these things so people can download
them??
>>>>>>>>>> (3) Voting procedures for release.  I've seen this
done as a vote in
>>>>>>>>>> general@incubator.org - is that actually necessary?
>>>>>>>>>> (4) Release branch and tag.  Do we want both?  What
is the correct
>>>>>>>>>> naming for each in apache?
>>>>>>>>>> (5) Legal requirements.  CHANGES.txt, LICENSE.txt,
etc.  Do these
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> to be included in the release tar.gz, or just the
source tar.gz?  I
>>>>>>>>>> suspect both, but please confirm.  Also, if there
is a typical
>>>>>>>>>> organization of the release tar.gz in relation to
the source tar.gz
>>>>>>>>>> this would be a good time to make that known.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What I've done here is taken all the pages that
I originally put in
>>>>>>>>>>> the Wiki, describing how to set up and run ManifoldCF,
and converted
>>>>>>>>>>> them to xdocs that are part of the ManifoldCF
site.  These documents
>>>>>>>>>>> have no user content other than stuff Grant or
I added, according to
>>>>>>>>>>> their logs, so I feel that is safe to do.  I've
left the wiki pages
>>>>>>>>>>> around but am thinking we'll want them to go
away at some point. Not
>>>>>>>>>>> sure exactly what to do with all the user comments
to them, however.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this a reasonable way to proceed?  We should
avoid using the wiki
>>>>>>>>>>> in the future for documentation, seems to me,
but otherwise I can
>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> no issues here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll
>>>>>>>>>>> <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Jack Krupansky
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't mean to imply that the wiki
needs to be physically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> included in the release zip/tar, just
that snapshotting and versioning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wiki should be done, if feasible,
so that a user who is on an older
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release can still see the doc for that
release. I am just thinking ahead for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> future releases. So, 0.1 does not need
this right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and I'm saying that we can't include
user generated content
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a release unless we have explicitly asked
for permission on it in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> form of patches and then committed by a committer.
 Since we don't lock down
>>>>>>>>>>>> our wiki, we can't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Grant
Ingersoll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:23
AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Jack Krupansky
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the wiki doc is also part of
the release. Does this stuff get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a version/release as well? Presumably
we want doc for currently supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases, and the doc can vary between
releases. Can we easily snapshot the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wiki?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't put Wiki in a release, as their
is no way to track
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the person has permission to
donate it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will we have nightly builds in place?
I think a 0.1 can get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released without a nightly build,
but it would be nice to say that we also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a "rolling trunk release" which
is just the latest build off trunk and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest wiki/doc as well. So,
some people may want the official 0.1, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others may want to run straight from
trunk/nightly build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
Karl Wright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010
1:56 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposal:  Release to consist of
two things: tar and zip of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source tree, and tar and zip of the
modules/dist area after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The implied way people are to work
with this is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - to use just the distribution, untar
or unzip the distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zip/tar into a work area, and either
use the multiprocess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the quickstart example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - to add a connector, untar or unzip
the source zip/tar into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area, and integrate your connector
into the build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this acceptable for a 0.1 release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:22 AM,
Jack Krupansky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, I wasn't intending to disparage
the RSS or other connectors,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my own priority list of "must
haves." By all means, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-supported"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector list should be whatever
list you want to feel is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclude only those where "we"
feel that "we" would not be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient support and assistance
online.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's great that qBase is offering
access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, I was just thinking that
maybe we should try to keep logs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector type in action so that
people have a reference to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consult when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> debugging their own connector-related
problems. In other words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful connection session
is supposed to look like. So, have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a test and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its "reference" log.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
Karl Wright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010
9:46 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
>

Mime
View raw message