Hi Lukas, I’ve found another bug (uploads do not cancel) that would be really good to be fixed before we do the 0.3 release.
I’m testing a solution right now, can you please hold off the release until I’ve committed the fix? Regards, Gavin On 28 Mar 2014, at 08:29, Gavin Cornwell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
