I've put the hammer down and somehow knocked out a draft of the developer docs. You can see the published form here:
*http://tinkerpop.incubator.apache.org/docs/3.1.0-SNAPSHOT/tutorials-getting-started.html <http://tinkerpop.incubator.apache.org/docs/3.1.0-SNAPSHOT/tutorials-getting-started.html>* It's not exactly what I thought it would be when I started, but I like how it ended. I expect to clean up spelling mistakes and other odds and ends, but for purposes of code review and general feedback I think it's good to go. I sense we'll tweak its contents in future releases, but this gives us our pattern to follow for other tutorials. I love that we now have something we can point new users at to help them get into TinkerPop. As it stands, my work is done for code freeze though I still need VOTEs from committers on my two PRs: https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/137 https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/138 What is the status on the remaining issues? Will we see PRs today? Dylan? Kuppitz? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a reminder that code freeze on 3.1.0 is coming up for monday 11/9. > We have a handful of remaining issues open: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20TINKERPOP3%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203.1.0-incubating%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20assignee%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC > > so i would expect those to start showing up in code review today. Note > that we are shorthanded for code review votes as Marko is gone for the next > few days, so please pay attention to the pull request queue and let's move > things through quickly. If you are expecting trouble meeting code freeze > deadline, please yell. > > For my part, I expect that I will not have this ticket done in time for > code freeze: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-923 > > It is however a "documentation task" and we've agreed that we can allow > such things to trickle into the early part of code freeze. We'll see if > allowing that causes problems and if we need to be stricter with that > policy. >
