Hi, We have some minor fixes on our side that I'm going to commit today. I will take care of the 0.3 release next week.
Regards, Lukas On 3/27/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
