Great! Has anyone else had a chance to look at RC1 yet? If not, should I offer gift certificates or something to encourage participation? ;-)
Karl On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > I'll take a look, but it won't likely be until Tuesday (extended Turkey going > on here!) > > On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> Uploaded RC1. >> Karl >> >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> A problem with the FileNet connector has caused me to build an RC1. >>> It's uploading now. >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jack Krupansky >>> <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>>> That's a great leap forward... RC0 of ManifoldCF 0.1! That's a lot of the >>>> hardest of the work. >>>> >>>> I'm busy on some other things right now, but maybe next week I can take a >>>> look. >>>> >>>> -- Jack Krupansky >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:00 PM >>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: Release? >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > -------------------------- > Grant Ingersoll > http://www.lucidimagination.com/ > > Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene: > http://www.lucidimagination.com/search > >
