Does the typescript code get compiled to a binary form (e.g., analogous to a jar) or is it distributed as source (e.g., more like javascript)?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:12 AM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Status on Mike's original list > 1-4 complete > > We have some tweaks that could be added for a 1.0.0, but perhaps we get an > 1.0.0-RC1 out ASAP, and then can improve that with further RCs? > > Blockers for an initial RC right now might be > 1. Do we know the ASF process for releasing the VSIX and zip to GitHub? > 2. Add the actions CI back in for automated release from a tag. > 3. Items 5-7 of Mike's original list ? > > Sound right? > > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 on summary + linking to older issue > > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:15 AM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 sounds good to me > > > > > > On 10/7/21 10:14 AM, John Wass wrote: > > > > Sounds good. I will do that and start to move issues over. > > > > > > > > Some of these issues have multiple posts by multiple authors and it > > will > > > be > > > > hard to capture all that context in the new repo. I'm thinking of > > > > generating a summary and then adding a link to the archived issue. > Any > > > > objections there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:01 PM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> No problem. Go ahead. That's a sensible last commit on that repo. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:00 PM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Will there be any problem with updating the readme in the old repo > to > > > >> note > > > >>> that it is relocated? > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:20 PM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Steps 1-7 sound good to me. Some thoughts > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> 1) push to https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode repository. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Who is going to push the code? > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> 2) move over github issues to the new repo issues > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It doesn't look like the "transfer issue" function works across > > orgs. > > > >> So > > > >>>> a manual move it shall be. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> 3) move wiki pages/doc to the github wiki associated with the new > > > >>>> repository > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Same thing, manual copy. Not as significant as issue moving. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> 4) archive the old original github repo (for posterity). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Concur. I'd say this happens first to ensure nothing drifts while > we > > > are > > > >>>> moving things around. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:41 AM Mike Beckerle < > mbecke...@apache.org > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> With the IP-clearance now complete, next steps (I think) are: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1) push to https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode repository. > > > >>>>> I believe the existing repo main branch should be pushed here as > > is, > > > >>>>> i.e., > > > >>>>> no need to squash anything. > > > >>>>> Note the main branch is named "main", not master. > > > >>>>> Tag it at the current point on the main branch. (suggest tag name > > > >>>>> apache-ip-clearance ? or happy-apache-birthday ?) > > > >>>>> 2) move over github issues to the new repo issues > > > >>>>> 3) move wiki pages/doc to the github wiki associated with the new > > > >>>>> repository > > > >>>>> 4) archive the old original github repo (for posterity). > > > >>>>> 5) update main daffodil-site pages to mention/highlight the new > > > vscode > > > >>>>> debugger and link to its issues and wiki. > > > >>>>> 6) whatever else I forgot > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> and.... > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 7) start planning for release 1.0.0. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am not sure what additional things are needed in order to meet > > > Apache > > > >>>>> criteria for release, given the vscode marketplace as a means of > > > >>>>> distribution. Perhaps we don't need to solve that yet? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I think we covered almost everything else during the IP-clearance > > > >>>>> process. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> If there are things, let's discuss them here on the dev list. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
