... going twice ... Karl
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >
