While I was looking for a solution, an upload attempt succeeded! So there is now an RC0 out on people.apache.org/~kwright:
[kwri...@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 [kwri...@minotaur:~]$ Please let me know what you think. Karl On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Karl Wright <daddy...@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 <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 >>> >>> >> >
