Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-connectors-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 45144 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2010 02:18:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2010 02:18:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 99690 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2010 02:18:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-connectors-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 99654 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2010 02:18:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact connectors-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 99646 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2010 02:18:12 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:18:12 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.9] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:18:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 45067 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2010 02:17:50 -0000 Received: from localhost.apache.org (HELO [10.0.0.77]) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username gsingers, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:17:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: Release? From: Grant Ingersoll In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:17:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <141A97A9-B282-43FE-B3DB-12DA53461EE7@apache.org> References: <6BB3FB84-AF4E-4E7F-80A1-17F9E80DB2D5@apache.org> <5F9A6C381D444589BC97CA1192594CDC@JackKrupansky> <194D8C61B2FE47C4AB9AF6D75D26AEF4@JackKrupansky> <998CF8FF233A473A85FAD8D190B7CFB0@JackKrupansky> <98B9252C244C4F8ABAA3250B467E41BF@JackKrupansky> <86BCDBC2-2FE4-40FF-BA45-F5DB80DB8BD3@apache.org> <55C26E5D-C90B-4C76-AF43-248221BCADA7@apache.org> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Never mind. On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Done > Karl >=20 > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Karl Wright = wrote: >> ok - I might move it there >> Karl >>=20 >>=20 >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Grant Ingersoll = wrote: >>> Weird, ~kwright doesn't resolve for me on people.a.o, but I can get = to /x1/home/kwright >>>=20 >>> 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 = http://people.apache.org/~kwright/ >>>=20 >>> -Grant >>>=20 >>> On Nov 23, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>>=20 >>>> While I was looking for a solution, an upload attempt succeeded! >>>>=20 >>>> So there is now an RC0 out on people.apache.org/~kwright: >>>>=20 >>>> [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:~]$ >>>>=20 >>>> Please let me know what you think. >>>> Karl >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Karl Wright = wrote: >>>>> The upload has failed repeatedly for me, so I'll clearly have to = find >>>>> another way. >>>>> Karl >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Karl Wright = 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? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Karl >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Grant Ingersoll = wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 6:18 AM, Karl Wright wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Yep, sorry, have been in meetings. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Last remaining release issue is getting the release files to a >>>>>>>> download mirror. Maybe I can find some doc for that too. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> See http://apache.org/dev/#releases for more info. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Karl Wright = 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. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Help? Grant? >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> (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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll = wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:23 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Release? >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't put Wiki in a release, as their is no way to = track whether the person has permission to donate it.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:56 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Release? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this acceptable for a 0.1 release? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's great that qBase is offering access. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:46 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Release? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My personal minimum "well-supported" connector list for = a 0.5 would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, web, and SharePoint*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Got to keep up with Google Connectors!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:28 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Release? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, get 0.1 out and then move on to a 0.2, etc. on a = monthly/bi-monthly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis as progress is made. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 8:38 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Release? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that we have NTLM figured out and the Memex stuff = behind us, how do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people feel about working towards a release? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Grant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> -------------------------- >>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -------------------------- >>> Grant Ingersoll >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com