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
