Hi Gavin, Sure - just drop me an email when you have fixed the issue :)
Cheers, Lukas On 3/31/14 3:51 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
