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 <daddy...@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 <gsing...@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 <daddy...@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 <daddy...@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 >>>>> gene...@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 <daddy...@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 <gsing...@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.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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------- >>>>>>> Grant Ingersoll >>>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> -------------------------- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> >> >
