manifoldcf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: Release?
Date Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:59:10 GMT

On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Karl Wright wrote:

> Hi Grant,
> In offline conversation you clarified that for (1) you are looking for
> the top level dir in the zip/tar to be named "apache-manifoldcf-0.1".
> You also seem to be asking for a number of other fixes that are
> specific to a release, that I presume would NOT be in sources on trunk
> (e.g. CHANGES.txt).  Are you envisioning that we make these specific
> changes in the release branch only?

It's perfectly fine for CHANGES.txt to be on trunk.  You make the change marking it as 0.1.
 Once the release is out, you add a new section at the top for trunk again.

Later, as we mature, we will likely have branches, etc. for this stuff, but for now let's
just assume trunk is under code freeze and the only changes that can be made are those related
to release.

> Karl
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll <> wrote:
>> We're close, but I think we've got a few more things to do.  I did get it to compile.
>> Notes:
>> 1. We should package the stuff all under apache-manifold-0.1 so that when we unzip
it's all in one folder.
>> 2. Many of the libs require an entry in the NOTICE.txt file
>> 3.  All licenses for those libs need to be appended on to the end of the LICENSE.txt
file (See Solr's for instance)
>> 4. The CHANGES.txt file should reflect that it is a release and not trunk (not critical
to fix)
>> 5. Is there anyway to make the package smaller?  Maybe we don't need to ship both
PDF and HTML for the docs.  Anything else we can trim?
>> 6. What's json/org/json all about?
>> 7. I still see Memex stuff in connectors dir.  I didn't check other places.
>> 8. We should hook in RAT (see Solr's build file) to verify that all source files
have appropriate license headers
>> Other than that, some other eyes on it would be good.
>> -Grant
>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>> Done
>>> Karl
>>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Karl Wright <> wrote:
>>>> ok - I might move it there
>>>> Karl
>>>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Grant Ingersoll <>
>>>>> Weird, ~kwright doesn't resolve for me on people.a.o, but I can get to
>>>>> FWIW, if you have a public_html directory in your directory and then
place the files there, everyone can download them and check them out at
>>>>> -Grant
>>>>> On Nov 23, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>>>>> While I was looking for a solution, an upload attempt succeeded!
>>>>>> So there is now an RC0 out on
>>>>>> [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
>>>>>> -rw-r--r--  1 kwright  kwright  158734230 Nov 23 17:55
>>>>>> -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 <>
>>>>>>> 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 <>
>>>>>>>> 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 <>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> Next steps would be to generate a candidate release which
the rest of us can download.  Put it up on 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 for more info.
>>>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Karl Wright <>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
<> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> - is that actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> (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
<> 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 <> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>> Grant Ingersoll
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll

Grant Ingersoll

View raw message