I'm done with (1), (4), and (5). Still waiting for help with (2) and (3)... going once....
Karl On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> 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 >> >> >
