I will at least need: (a) Grant to look at it, to make sure the legal niceties are taken care of, and (b) Help in getting the images and signature files up to the mirrors
I'll call the vote after (a) is done. Karl On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > +1 > > Unfortunately I am maxed out until at least Friday, so there has been no > chance for me to get to look at it. That said, I won't hold it up. Besides, > 0.1 is mostly testing the process anyway, so we can fix issues in 0.2 as > well. So, I say go for it, unless somebody really objects. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:47 AM > To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Release? > > Should I just call the vote? It's been a week... > Karl > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >>> >>> >> > >
