Hi, I have run through all the tests on our side and found a couple of minor issues that I addressed yesterday (project settings and a progress issue).
There is still an Xcode warning/suggestion on the project settings (when using Xcode 5.1) which caused a problem building with Xcode 5.0 so I’ve left them as they were for now. The 64 bit slice is being included in the binary so I think this will be fine for this release. Unless you have a different opinion on the project settings I think we’re ready for the 0.3 release. Regards, Gavin On 25 Mar 2014, at 15:24, Gavin Cornwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > There’s one more thing to check on our side before giving the green light for > 0.3, I will work on that tomorrow and let you know as soon as I can. > > Regards, > > Gavin > > > On 25 Mar 2014, at 06:38, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Alright then. Just give me you OK when everything is ready for 0.3 from >> your side. I will then do the release. >> >> Whenever you are ready for the initial browser binding checkin please let >> me know so that we can have a look and discuss the further approach :) >> >> Regards, >> Lukas >> >> On 3/24/14 11:14 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sounds good to me, I just need to check here that there isn¹t anything >>> else required for 0.3, the guy I need to ask is beck from holiday >>> tomorrow so I¹ll send a response tomorrow if that¹s OK? >>> >>> If you don¹t mind doing the release that is absolutely fine with me ;-) >>> >>> Regarding the browser binding, I created the branch over the weekend and >>> have merged the work I did previously into that locally. There is still >>> some work to do before I¹m happy doing an initial commit, but I plan on >>> doing that in the evenings this week so I should have something to >>> contribute soon. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Gavin >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 Mar 2014, at 16:46, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Excellent thats also our opinion. However ACL write support is not on >>>> our >>>> list for the next weeks, so I would rather do a release now and then >>>> concentrate on Browser Binding. >>>> Do you want me to do the release? Please let me know how you want to >>>> proceed. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Lukas >>>> >>>> On 3/21/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think yes, we should target the 0.3 release without the browser >>>>> binding. >>>>> >>>>> We will probably need a 0.3 release sooner than 3-4 months (most likely >>>>> in the next month) and I will only be able to work on the browser >>>>> binding >>>>> as a background task in my spare time. >>>>> >>>>> My preference therefore would be to finish your ACL write features and >>>>> release that as 0.3 and then have a 0.4 release for the browser binding >>>>> support. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Gavin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20 Mar 2014, at 13:01, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> The main question is: Do we target a 0.3 release without browser >>>>>> binding >>>>>> or do we plan to get browser binding done first. From our side this >>>>>> depends on the timeframe in which we can get this done. If we could >>>>>> get >>>>>> this done within lets say the next 2 to 3 months I would prefer to >>>>>> bundle >>>>>> everything together and release 0.3. If you think we need longer than >>>>>> we >>>>>> should consider moving browser binding to 0.4. However we have a >>>>>> strong >>>>>> demand for browser binding and therefore plan to have at least one >>>>>> person >>>>>> working full-time on this topic. >>>>>> The only other thing currently in our pipeline is write support for >>>>>> ACLs. >>>>>> We recently committed the parser for read support however write is >>>>>> still >>>>>> missing. We plan to do this also during the next weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Lukas >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/14 10:27 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Excellent, a 0.3 release would also be really useful for us too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would suggest doing a release sooner rather than later, what other >>>>>>> implementation tasks are there from your side that would need to be >>>>>>> done >>>>>>> before 0.3? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gav >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 20 Mar 2014, at 07:58, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree that it would be more consistent to have only the request >>>>>>>> object >>>>>>>> to cancel a request. I will change our code to use the request >>>>>>>> objects >>>>>>>> cancel method and then remove the stop parameter from the library. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We had problems using Google hangout in the past, however we could >>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> another try. Just let me know when you have setup the branch and we >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> schedule a session. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We should also discuss the timeframe for the upcoming implementation >>>>>>>> tasks >>>>>>>> so that we can plan the Objective CMIS 0.3 release. We need this new >>>>>>>> release as early as possible so that we can get an approval for it >>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Lukas >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/19/14 10:21 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do see your point about the stop parameter being a common >>>>>>>>> paradigm >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> iOS, however, personally I would prefer that we remove it, >>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>> the request approach works. We then have one consistent way to >>>>>>>>> cancel >>>>>>>>> operations across the whole library (the parameter approach is only >>>>>>>>> applicable to methods with progress). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Great to hear you're also interested in the browser binding. I did >>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>> initial work a while ago so I need to sync it with the recent >>>>>>>>> changes >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> I'll commit it in a branch as soon as I can. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I too think it would be a great idea to resurrect the status >>>>>>>>> meeting, >>>>>>>>> even if it's just once a month. I will schedule something once I've >>>>>>>>> committed something. Can you remind me, are you guys able to use >>>>>>>>> Google >>>>>>>>> Hangouts or would webex be a better choice? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gavin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
