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.krupan...@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.krupan...@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.krupan...@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
