On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Hi Grant, > > In offline conversation you clarified that for (1) you are looking for > the top level dir in the zip/tar to be named "apache-manifoldcf-0.1". > You also seem to be asking for a number of other fixes that are > specific to a release, that I presume would NOT be in sources on trunk > (e.g. CHANGES.txt). Are you envisioning that we make these specific > changes in the release branch only?
It's perfectly fine for CHANGES.txt to be on trunk. You make the change marking it as 0.1. Once the release is out, you add a new section at the top for trunk again. Later, as we mature, we will likely have branches, etc. for this stuff, but for now let's just assume trunk is under code freeze and the only changes that can be made are those related to release. > > Karl > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: >> We're close, but I think we've got a few more things to do. I did get it to >> compile. >> >> Notes: >> >> 1. We should package the stuff all under apache-manifold-0.1 so that when we >> unzip it's all in one folder. >> 2. Many of the libs require an entry in the NOTICE.txt file >> 3. All licenses for those libs need to be appended on to the end of the >> LICENSE.txt file (See Solr's for instance) >> 4. The CHANGES.txt file should reflect that it is a release and not trunk >> (not critical to fix) >> 5. Is there anyway to make the package smaller? Maybe we don't need to ship >> both PDF and HTML for the docs. Anything else we can trim? >> 6. What's json/org/json all about? >> 7. I still see Memex stuff in connectors dir. I didn't check other places. >> 8. We should hook in RAT (see Solr's build file) to verify that all source >> files have appropriate license headers >> >> Other than that, some other eyes on it would be good. >> >> -Grant >> >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >>> Done >>> Karl >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> -------------------------- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> >> -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com
