i took a quick look, i definitely agree we need to document all 3rd party dependencies in notice.txt and include licenses with them.
separately, i have an additional concern, and that is i'm really concerned about a release going out with some of the database interface code looking very prone to sql injection attacks. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert has expressed a willingness to chip in on the remaining issues > later this week, when he's no longer being buried alive. > Thanks, Robert! > Karl > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ok, this too has been done. >> Still no takers for (2) and (3). Going thrice... >> >> Karl >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Typically, the practice is that the name of the file is the name of the >>> directory, but I don't know that it has to be. Just easier, since you only >>> need one Ant variable. >>> >>> -Grant >>> >>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>> >>>> Does this also apply to the top-level directory in the tar or zip as >>>> well? or can that be left as "apache-manifoldcf-0.1"? >>>> >>>> Karl >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> FYI, I think the package name needs to have the words incubating in it >>>>> too, as in manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.tar.gz >>>>> >>>>> -Grant >>>>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Karl Wright wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ... 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------- >>>>> Grant Ingersoll >>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/ >>>>> >>>>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene: >>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -------------------------- >>> Grant Ingersoll >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/ >>> >>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene: >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search >>> >>> >> >
