On 04/12/12 16:59, Gary Martin wrote:
OK, thanks for the suggestion. I attempted to embed it within the
paragraph rather than tack it on at the end. It might not be any
better of course. Anyway, I attempted to keep my mention of
infrastructure neutral to avoid offsetting the attempts to show a
little more optimism (talk of successful release and the smoother
process for 0.3.0, dropping the explicit suggestion that there is more
to improve in documentation to help new contributors..) and here is my
new suggestion:
Since the last report, Bloodhound has successfully created two more
releases.
The problems highlighted in the September report, regarding the use of an
external site for the download of some of the dependencies, have been
largely
solved by working with their maintainers to ensure that their packages
are
available through a standard location (pypi).
Releases themselves are beginning to become a little more routine
although the
time between the initiation of the vote for release of 0.2.0 and the
subsequent
announcement of the result was of concern but the 0.3.0 release was
significantly smoother.
Three new committers have been added to the project and they have driven
considerable conversation on the mailing lists in a relatively short
time. The
barriers to contributing have been reduced significantly and we plan to
continue to work on this area. In addition to the identification of
tickets
that are suitable for newcomers we now have documentation of aspects
of ticket
management and the workflow that we use. Proposals for larger
enhancements are
also documented on the wiki in such a way that they reflect the
decisions made
on the project dev mailing list, reducing the work associated with
digging
through the mailing list.
From the infrastructure side the project has two open requests. One of
these
requests was opened in July, requesting a means for the Bloodhound source
browser to have effective access to a local copy of the svn repository.
Alternatives have been suggested but there is no obvious resolution to
this
issue at this point.
So, if we drop the establishment of a frequent release cycle from the
list of the top three issues, I could add Grow User Community in the
second position if that seems distinct enough. Other suggestions are
welcome.
Cheers,
Gary
Right.. as there were no further comments, I updated
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2012 with the above text but
for a few minor changes.
Cheers,
Gary
