Hi, Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.
Regards, Gavin On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
