> On Mar 12, 2016, at 9:52 PM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > > I checked the instructions Shawned initiated for the release vote, I have to > say that it's pretty complex or involves much overhead, particularly for me, > a guy that never has the time to absorb the complexity or beauty of LDAP > things. It contains 4 repos or packages to check and two backends for the > integration tests. I'm wondering if the project can be reorganized and > consolidated together in future so that people just check out the whole from > one repo and when run mvn package install, then all the necessary basic > checks can be done.
Agreed. mvn install ’should’ run the junit tests against an embedded apacheds. It’s actually pretty easy to do, but haven’t taken the time. Just to be clear, nobody (other than I) needs to test all of the packages against both backends. I did post some suggestions on what others could test, i.e. only the core, with apacheds only, but with all of the emails flying around on this list, it would have been easy to miss. Another takeaway for next time - provide better instructions on how to test the releases - specifically. > On Mar 12, 2016, at 9:52 PM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > > I checked the sub-project home page in the Directory site and I had another > suggestion that we may not have to list the all bugs but instead the major > features/functionalities updated. People may click and go into details for > the full bug lists. Oh yeah, the fortress sub-project home page needs to be improved. Of all the todos that I have procrastinated on, this is perhaps the most glaring. To be honest, I’m not a big fan of our CMS. Too many steps to get content published. But I don’t have a better idea, so have kept quiet up to now. > On Mar 12, 2016, at 9:52 PM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the long term, the Fortress project itself can be alone separated from > the Directory, which may makes the both sides happy, Fortress can evolve fast > in its own styles and the parent Directory can be lighter weight focusing on > the core, basic LDAP and the serber things. It looks to me that to cover all > the wonderful features, the sub-project page won't be to cover them well and > look decent. > > Overall, right now, for the sub-project, I would think, let we relax some > bit, let it develop, evolve and release faster and often. Probably same thing > to Kerby. There are enough reasons and benefits to the fortress sub-project itself to remain connected to the directory project. I think we can achieve the stated goals, w/out separation. But it is a fair point. Perhaps the vice versa is not true? Will need to directory stalwarts to weigh with their thoughts. > On Mar 12, 2016, at 9:52 PM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry for this inappropriate thoughts on this thread. Will check with my side > to see if any help here. Thanks all for the hard-working. Kai, your comments were well received by me. Thanks for letting us know. Shawn
