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 17:06:15 GMT
I will at least need:
(a) Grant to look at it, to make sure the legal niceties are taken care of, and
(b) Help in getting the images and signature files up to the mirrors

I'll call the vote after (a) is done.
Karl


On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Jack Krupansky
<jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Unfortunately I am maxed out until at least Friday, so there has been no
> chance for me to get to look at it. That said, I won't hold it up. Besides,
> 0.1 is mostly testing the process anyway, so we can fix issues in 0.2 as
> well. So, I say go for it, unless somebody really objects.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:47 AM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release?
>
> 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