I'll take a look, but it won't likely be until Tuesday (extended Turkey going on here!)
On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Karl Wright wrote: > Uploaded RC1. > Karl > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> A problem with the FileNet connector has caused me to build an RC1. >> It's uploading now. >> >> Karl >> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jack Krupansky >> <jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>> That's a great leap forward... RC0 of ManifoldCF 0.1! That's a lot of the >>> hardest of the work. >>> >>> I'm busy on some other things right now, but maybe next week I can take a >>> look. >>> >>> -- Jack Krupansky >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Karl Wright >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:00 PM >>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Release? >>> >>> 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/ Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
