Hello, I think we could release TavMob as it is. As long as the licences are all ok. The infra folks set up a google play account as well so we could push it to that. We could also just release the APK independently of that. I'll investigate doing an APK release.
I think we have to be a bit ruthless with the codebases and prune everything except the currently released repos, server and (maybe) workbench. The rest can be moved somewhere else (tav-extras?) and can be brought back in later Cheers, Ian On 01/03/17 19:17, Gale Naylor wrote: >> Decide which code is in/out: "... keep > our future options open >> to bring in the rest of the code later without a second software grant." > That sounds like a good plan. What do we have to do to find out if we can > bring the rest of the code in later without a new grant? > > A weekly status sounds like a good way to keep this moving. > > Gale > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 8:49 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:31:59 +0000, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> There is a recent thread regarding getting podlings to graduate on the >>>> incubator mailing list. Perhaps we can add Taverna to their list. We >> may >>>> have stalled again. Any thoughts? What really, really, really needs >> done >>>> to graduate? Let's move out any non essential components. We've already >>>> released several so they are ready to go. Of the rest what do we really >>>> need to keep? I can't see any that are essential. >>> I think you've described the situation accurately. >>> >>> * Decide which code is in and which is not. >> This is the tricky bit.. I guess we have been undecided, as there is >> more we think "should" keep than we have been able to get ready. >> >> We have to be more realistic and cut our ambitions to align with the >> actual effort we have available. It would be good if we can still keep >> our future options open to bring in the rest of the code later without a >> second software grant. >> >> >>> * Release the "in" code. >> Agreed. This should be not be too much work for taverna-server, and even >> for taverna-workbench-* (although they might not be release-ready for >> the public). >> >> >>> * Don't stall :-) >> Let's start a weekly status roll to avoid stalling. We can do it >> >> >>> Good would be to have more PPMC diversity of organisation. >> Technically we've got higher diversity now that Ian no longer >> works at The University of Manchester, Christian and Donal are in a >> different group and Gale got a new job :-) - but I see your point - >> particularly in consideration of what is effectively the *active* PPMC. >> >>> Graduation needs the codebase to be ASF-clean and verified; that's >>> Tavernas main item in my view. A release does that best. >> I suggest we do a source code release of what we have, and don't promote >> too much on the website anything that is not at user-ready. >> >> Taverna Mobile would be interesting to release as well - as there's >> never been an Android release through the incubator before, and those >> have their own (it turns out) proprietary build chains. >> >> >>> Maybe Taverna isn't quite at the point to be rallied. The other >>> podlings are mostly all done, just need to do the grdauation step itself. >> Agree on this ; while we're pretty much ready to graduate, for the IPMC >> to evaluate that this is the case would take a bit longer than in the >> projects in the rally. >> >> I think Ian has done well on our license review under >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-09+License+review >> and sub pages, which fits into >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+Taverna+Graduation+Maturity+Assessment >> >> However the above still needs filling in for the remaining parts, from >> RE40 and below. >> >> -- >> Stian Soiland-Reyes >> The University of Manchester >> http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/ >> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >> >>
