manifoldcf-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 Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:47:18 GMT
Should I just call the vote?  It's been a week...
Karl

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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