Hey Guys,

I created a 1.1 version in JIRA and pushed all open (~13) issues for 1.0 to 1.1.

We now have 32 issues resolved in the current 1.0. WDYT? Good enough
for a 1.0 release? I'm happy to spin the RC tonight or in the next day (PDT).

Any objections?

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Chris,

I think the main issue with cutting a 1.0 release is whether we think the APIs are close enough.

From what I remember on the previous thread, the only open issue there was getting rid of deprecated stuff. Jukka had written:

> It sounds like we have consensus to get rid of the deprecated stuff
> before 1.0. I don't think a separate 0.9.9 or 0.10 release for that is
> really needed, but it would be good to create a 0.x branch right
> before the backwards-incompatible changes so people who have trouble
> with the upgrade still have something more recent than 0.9 to work
> with.

So I don't think this impacts the timing, but maybe the process?

-- Ken

On Oct 26, 2011, at 3:16am, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> Hey Guys,
>
> I created a 1.1 version in JIRA and pushed all open (~13) issues for 1.0 to 1.1.
>
> We now have 32 issues resolved in the current 1.0. WDYT? Good enough
> for a 1.0 release? I'm happy to spin the RC tonight or in the next day (PDT).
>
> Any objections?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

--------------------------
Ken Krugler
+1 530-210-6378
http://bixolabs.com
custom big data solutions & training
Hadoop, Cascading, Mahout & Solr

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Ken Krugler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From what I remember on the previous thread, the only open issue there
> was getting rid of deprecated stuff.

That's now done, see TIKA-703 and revision 1189822.

There's a few OSGi improvements that I'd still like to push in for
TIKA-565 and that would be cool to have included already in 1.0, but
there's no big harm if they slip to 1.1 instead.

How about if we leave the trunk open still for the weekend, and cut
the 1.0 release candidate at the beginning of next week? That still
gives us the whole week for the release process, and we should then
have the release out nicely just in time for the ApacheCon.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

PERFECT!

Thanks Jukka!

Cheers,
Chris

On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Ken Krugler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From what I remember on the previous thread, the only open issue there
>> was getting rid of deprecated stuff.
>
> That's now done, see TIKA-703 and revision 1189822.
>
> There's a few OSGi improvements that I'd still like to push in for
> TIKA-565 and that would be cool to have included already in 1.0, but
> there's no big harm if they slip to 1.1 instead.
>
> How about if we leave the trunk open still for the weekend, and cut
> the 1.0 release candidate at the beginning of next week? That still
> gives us the whole week for the release process, and we should then
> have the release out nicely just in time for the ApacheCon.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about if we leave the trunk open still for the weekend, and cut
> the 1.0 release candidate at the beginning of next week?

With TIKA-565 and TIKA-763 resolved the trunk is now ready for release
as far as I'm concerned.

TIKA-764 is currently marked for 1.0. Nick, is it ready to be resolved
or should we postpone it to a later release?

Are there other issues we should still look at before the release?

PS. It would be great if people with downstream projects could test
the latest trunk already before the release candidate is out to catch
any adverse effects caused by the removal of deprecated methods and
the upgrade of the OSGi package versions to 1.0.0.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about if we leave the trunk open still for the weekend, and cut
>> the 1.0 release candidate at the beginning of next week?
>
> TIKA-764 is currently marked for 1.0. Nick, is it ready to be resolved
> or should we postpone it to a later release?

We should maybe split it and resolve the first part. The ODF parser now
outputs the correct keys for the part we have keys for, along with the
"wrong" (non-standard ones) for backwards compatibility. The 2nd step is
to add a few extra common keys for the stats that ODF has that aren't
covered, then remove the non standard keys

Nick

I'll get going on the RC then thanks guys!

Cheers,
Chris

On Nov 1, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about if we leave the trunk open still for the weekend, and cut
>> the 1.0 release candidate at the beginning of next week?
>
> With TIKA-565 and TIKA-763 resolved the trunk is now ready for release
> as far as I'm concerned.
>
> TIKA-764 is currently marked for 1.0. Nick, is it ready to be resolved
> or should we postpone it to a later release?
>
> Are there other issues we should still look at before the release?
>
> PS. It would be great if people with downstream projects could test
> the latest trunk already before the release candidate is out to catch
> any adverse effects caused by the removal of deprecated methods and
> the upgrade of the OSGi package versions to 1.0.0.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> TIKA-764 is currently marked for 1.0. Nick, is it ready to be resolved or
>> should we postpone it to a later release?
>
> We should maybe split it and resolve the first part. The ODF parser now
> outputs the correct keys for the part we have keys for, along with the
> "wrong" (non-standard ones) for backwards compatibility. The 2nd step is to
> add a few extra common keys for the stats that ODF has that aren't covered,
> then remove the non standard keys

Sounds good. I resolved TIKA-764 for 1.0 and created TIKA-770 for the followup.

BR,

Jukka Zitting