Re: Unprocessed grant in documents/received/sga_ptgoetz_storm_jms.pdf

[Sam Ruby]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Craig Russell
 wrote:
>
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Craig Russell  wrote:
>>
>> I think it’s time to switch over to secmail.
>>
>> The only thing we have not tested is new members. As long as you’re willing 
>> to add the membership application functionality before the next members come 
>> in, we can disable secretary workbench.
>
> What I can do is to rough in the form for the member app. But the processing 
> to update the members.txt file may be too much for my current skilz. Since 
> the form, processing, and email bits are now more separated it might be 
> easier.
> WDYT?

Sure.  Take your time, rough in what you like/feel comfortable doing.

I'm not overly concerned about membership applications processing of
things like members.txt as I have working code I can steal from.
While you may not yet feel comfortable writing the action script from
scratch, hopefully you will be able to do minor tweaks on the logic
once it is in place.  The fact that the new logic shows what it is
going to do before it does it should make that process easier.  And
that fact that doing it consists primarily of executing svn commands
and actually delivering the mail should also.

With the new design, all work is done in temporary directories, so
there is no need to worry about locks, no need to clean up, and no
possibility of 'wedging'.

> Craig

- Sam Ruby

>> Thanks,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:15 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Craig Russell  
>>> wrote:
 Any idea why this document does not show up in secretary workbench?
>>>
>>> Um, perhaps because it was deleted?
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60704b7e60e99f150d7f1ea33bdfb03e805e4d46296b242a61bf37ec@%3Cfoundation-commits.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> Perhaps the real question should be: what functionality is missing
>>> from the new secmail tool that would enable you to switch over
>>> completely?
>>>
>>> One thing I have noticed is that when you have a document that you
>>> have received out of band you want to process you commit it to
>>> document/received and process it with the old workbench tool.  The new
>>> process would be to email it to secretary@ and process it with the
>>> secmail tool.
>>>
>>> Is there anything else that needs to be addressed?
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
 Thanks,

 Craig

 Craig L Russell
 Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
 c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect
>> craig.russ...@oracle.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect
> craig.russ...@oracle.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Unprocessed grant in documents/received/sga_ptgoetz_storm_jms.pdf

[Craig Russell]

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Craig Russell  wrote:
> 
> I think it’s time to switch over to secmail.
> 
> The only thing we have not tested is new members. As long as you’re willing 
> to add the membership application functionality before the next members come 
> in, we can disable secretary workbench.

What I can do is to rough in the form for the member app. But the processing to 
update the members.txt file may be too much for my current skilz. Since the 
form, processing, and email bits are now more separated it might be easier.

WDYT?

Craig

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Craig
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:15 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Craig Russell  
>> wrote:
>>> Any idea why this document does not show up in secretary workbench?
>> 
>> Um, perhaps because it was deleted?
>> 
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60704b7e60e99f150d7f1ea33bdfb03e805e4d46296b242a61bf37ec@%3Cfoundation-commits.apache.org%3E
>> 
>> Perhaps the real question should be: what functionality is missing
>> from the new secmail tool that would enable you to switch over
>> completely?
>> 
>> One thing I have noticed is that when you have a document that you
>> have received out of band you want to process you commit it to
>> document/received and process it with the old workbench tool.  The new
>> process would be to email it to secretary@ and process it with the
>> secmail tool.
>> 
>> Is there anything else that needs to be addressed?
>> 
>> - Sam Ruby
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
>>> c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> 
> 
> Craig L Russell
> Architect
> craig.russ...@oracle.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: Unprocessed grant in documents/received/sga_ptgoetz_storm_jms.pdf

[Craig Russell]

I think it’s time to switch over to secmail.

The only thing we have not tested is new members. As long as you’re willing to 
add the membership application functionality before the next members come in, 
we can disable secretary workbench.

Thanks,

Craig

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:15 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Craig Russell  
> wrote:
>> Any idea why this document does not show up in secretary workbench?
> 
> Um, perhaps because it was deleted?
> 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60704b7e60e99f150d7f1ea33bdfb03e805e4d46296b242a61bf37ec@%3Cfoundation-commits.apache.org%3E
> 
> Perhaps the real question should be: what functionality is missing
> from the new secmail tool that would enable you to switch over
> completely?
> 
> One thing I have noticed is that when you have a document that you
> have received out of band you want to process you commit it to
> document/received and process it with the old workbench tool.  The new
> process would be to email it to secretary@ and process it with the
> secmail tool.
> 
> Is there anything else that needs to be addressed?
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>> Craig L Russell
>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
>> c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 

Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: Unprocessed grant in documents/received/sga_ptgoetz_storm_jms.pdf

[Sam Ruby]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Craig Russell  wrote:
> Any idea why this document does not show up in secretary workbench?

Um, perhaps because it was deleted?

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60704b7e60e99f150d7f1ea33bdfb03e805e4d46296b242a61bf37ec@%3Cfoundation-commits.apache.org%3E

Perhaps the real question should be: what functionality is missing
from the new secmail tool that would enable you to switch over
completely?

One thing I have noticed is that when you have a document that you
have received out of band you want to process you commit it to
document/received and process it with the old workbench tool.  The new
process would be to email it to secretary@ and process it with the
secmail tool.

Is there anything else that needs to be addressed?

- Sam Ruby

> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>

Unprocessed grant in documents/received/sga_ptgoetz_storm_jms.pdf

[Craig Russell]

Any idea why this document does not show up in secretary workbench?

Thanks,

Craig

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo