I added the RAT stuff ant rat-sources
It can be refined a bit to exclude some things, but running it shows a whole lot of stuff that doesn't have headers. Also, I noticed we have a whole lot of files that refer to Metacarta still. I think those need to be changed. -Grant On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Great! > Karl > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: >> I can hook up the RAT stuff. >> >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:02 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >>> OK, so I will do the appropriate things to make (1), (4), and maybe >>> (5) happen. Does anyone want to help with (2), (3), and (8)? >>> Karl >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> -------------------------- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> >> -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com
