Looks like we want and can do new releases...
Re OpenCMIS release:
I think we should do a release similar to 0.2 and deal with the documentation
later in 0.4. (See below.)
@Gab: Would you drive that?
Re cmislib release:
A version 0.4.1 sounds good to me!
Re documentation (of OpenCMIS):
The documentation is our weak point. I think we should go for a more structured
approach.
How about coming up with a new documentation outline? That would help us
identifying the gaps and we can divide the work amongst us. Opinions?
With the move to the Apache CMS, the website and therefore all our
documentation pages are now in SVN.
We don't actually need to grab it from the website anymore. We can check it
out, apply a template (which need not to be the website template) and generate
the documentation as part of the release.
Re tests:
Yes, we have a lot of tests but they are spread. I agree we should consolidate
them.
Similar to the documentation, I think we need a plan and objectives. Does
somebody feel strongly enough about this to work on a proposal?
Re fulltext query parser:
I agree.
@Jens: Do we have a JIRA issue for that? Would you take that? You know the
parser better than most of us...
Re DotCMIS:
All operations are implemented and basic tests are working against Alfresco and
IBM FileNet. But the test coverage isn't great yet.
We could either cut a release now and fix potential bugs later ("release early,
release often") or do more testing and delay the first release.
Opinions?
Re roadmap:
I think we should have one. :)
In particular, we have to think about CMIS 1.1. For example, we could integrate
the Browser Binding code now without endangering CMIS 1.0 compatibility.
Any takers? Would JIRA be a good tool to maintain a roadmap?
Cheers,
Florian
On 23/02/2011 13:38, Gabriele Columbro wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks for getting this started.
>
> From a purely release/packaging standpoint it should be easy to upgrade to a
> TLP release (removing version suffix and incubator notices in artifacts +
> change some quite trivial POM information).
>
> I suggest we open a more detailed issue in JIRA for that. I can take care of
> that and even shoot for a release in the next weeks.
>
> My only general concern still open on our releases is the documentation
> lifecycle, as I'm unsure of the happy coexistence (and coherence in a
> release package) of generated Maven Docs, the new Apache CMS pages (or old
> wiki pages) and the chemistry-docs.zip package we release (which wgets the
> current snapshot of online docs and adds freshly generated javadocs). But
> maybe it's something that can wait for a 1.0. WDYT?
>
> I agree with Stephan that a roadmap is a good idea.
>
> Thanks,
> Gab
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Klevenz, Stephan
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> +1
>>
>> for a 0.3.0 as an 'as is' release just without the incubation label. ASAP.
>>
>> Then we could also think about a roadmap to 1.0 release which could include
>> further minor releases and major code changes.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stephan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Florian Müller [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2011 13:05
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: TLP releases
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We are ticking off more and more tasks that are related to the graduation.
>> But there is still one big open topic: TLP releases
>>
>> When do we think can and should we release OpenCMIS and cmislib without
>> "incubating" label?
>>
>> Can we just take the current code and release it? There shouldn't be too
>> many changes since the last releases.
>> Even though the release processes are now slightly different and we have to
>> adjust the release packages a bit, it shouldn't take too long to prepare the
>> releases.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Florian
>>
>
>
>
