ok - I might move it there Karl
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > Weird, ~kwright doesn't resolve for me on people.a.o, but I can get to > /x1/home/kwright > > FWIW, if you have a public_html directory in your directory and then place > the files there, everyone can download them and check them out at > http://people.apache.org/~kwright/ > > -Grant > > On Nov 23, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > >> 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 > >
