You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bloodhound.apache.org by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> on 2013/07/12 01:48:29 UTC
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (IMHO) there is a serious issue which is
> that attachments will not work for global wikis, at least until
> pending patch will be applied .
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/attachment/ticket/387/t387_r149918_global_attachments.diff
>
> Should we mention that in release notes ?
>
(Sending to dev list)
I've confirmed the defect you reported - attempting to add an attachment to
the global wiki will result in an attachment being added to the wiki page
with the same relative path in the default product. For example, attempting
to add an attachment to `/wiki/WikiStart` will (in a standard Bloodhound
installation) result in the attachment being added to
`/products/%40/wiki/WikiStart`.
I hadn't payed much attention to #387 in the time leading up to the
release, but had I been aware of the issue I would most likely have raised
it on the dev list and suggested that we fix it before the 0.6 release. My
approach has been to fix any major regressions, and I would categorize this
as a major regression.
Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new release,
so my feeling is that we should just generate a new release that includes
the fix.
Do others feel that a new release is warranted for this defect?
- Ryan
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 7/14/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >
>> >
>> > If everyone agrees to keeping the ReleaseNotes on the wiki, the next
>> steps
>> > are:
>> > * Restrict access to [1] using FineGrainedPermsisions [2]. I don't
>> > have
>> > the elevated permissions to make these changes so I'll need help from
>> > someone that can install ConfigObj on the server (if not already
>> > installed), create the authz file and make the changes that require
>> > TRAC_ADMIN. A forthcoming enhancement [3] to AccountManagerPlugin
>> > should
>> > help with maintaining the authz file.
>> > * Replace content of RELEASE_NOTES file with a link to [1].
>> > * Add link to BloodhoundReleaseNotes on WikiStart [4].
>> >
>> > Anything else?
>> >
>>
>> Ideas:
>>
>> It'd be nice if we could generate release notes automatically.
>
>
> The group's previous lengthy discussion on this topic (1) didn't result in
> any changes to this part of our process, but one possible conclusion from
> that discussion was that we'd wait until the project had a good level of
> stability and more adopters before we try to make very detailed release
> notes, and in the meantime we'd just stick with the high level release
> notes. I think the topic is worth revisiting (at some point).
>
I forgot ... sorry . <joke> I'm too old for this ML thing </joke>
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >
> >
> > If everyone agrees to keeping the ReleaseNotes on the wiki, the next
> steps
> > are:
> > * Restrict access to [1] using FineGrainedPermsisions [2]. I don't have
> > the elevated permissions to make these changes so I'll need help from
> > someone that can install ConfigObj on the server (if not already
> > installed), create the authz file and make the changes that require
> > TRAC_ADMIN. A forthcoming enhancement [3] to AccountManagerPlugin should
> > help with maintaining the authz file.
> > * Replace content of RELEASE_NOTES file with a link to [1].
> > * Add link to BloodhoundReleaseNotes on WikiStart [4].
> >
> > Anything else?
> >
>
> Ideas:
>
> It'd be nice if we could generate release notes automatically.
The group's previous lengthy discussion on this topic (1) didn't result in
any changes to this part of our process, but one possible conclusion from
that discussion was that we'd wait until the project had a good level of
stability and more adopters before we try to make very detailed release
notes, and in the meantime we'd just stick with the high level release
notes. I think the topic is worth revisiting (at some point).
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 7/13/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>
> If everyone agrees to keeping the ReleaseNotes on the wiki, the next steps
> are:
> * Restrict access to [1] using FineGrainedPermsisions [2]. I don't have
> the elevated permissions to make these changes so I'll need help from
> someone that can install ConfigObj on the server (if not already
> installed), create the authz file and make the changes that require
> TRAC_ADMIN. A forthcoming enhancement [3] to AccountManagerPlugin should
> help with maintaining the authz file.
> * Replace content of RELEASE_NOTES file with a link to [1].
> * Add link to BloodhoundReleaseNotes on WikiStart [4].
>
> Anything else?
>
Ideas:
It'd be nice if we could generate release notes automatically. In any
case having URLs (anchors) pointing at the contents of each release
would be nice (including previous releases ?)
[...]
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>wrote:
> On 15/07/13 10:02, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/12/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12.07.2013 01:48, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that's the case, then we're doing something wrong. Release notes
>>>>>> should not be part of the release tarball -- that should contain a
>>>>>> /link/ to the release notes, so that any errata can be applied to the
>>>>>> "live" release notes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subversion keeps release notes in the project site repository. BH
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> have wiki pages with release notes -- only editable by committers, of
>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Brane
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keeping release notes on the wiki sounds good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> fwiw +
>>>>
>>>> On a related note, at some point we should do something about our
>>>>>
>>>> diverging
>>>>
>>>>> installation instructions on the wiki (1) and in the repository (2). I
>>>>>
>>>> vote
>>>>
>>>>> for using the wiki in this case as well. This was recently brought to
>>>>>
>>>> our
>>>>
>>>>> attention again by a user (3).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) https://issues.apache.org/**bloodhound/wiki/**BloodhoundInstall<https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/BloodhoundInstall>
>>>>> (2)
>>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/bloodhound/trunk/**
>>>> installer/README.rst<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/trunk/installer/README.rst>
>>>>
>>>>> (3) http://markmail.org/message/**pa6go7siozxtouje<http://markmail.org/message/pa6go7siozxtouje>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a recent conversation in trac-users ML that seems to be
>>>> related
>>>> to this
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.**com/lists/trac/users/51772?**page=last<http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51772?page=last>
>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.**com/lists/trac/users/51804<http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51804>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If everyone agrees to keeping the ReleaseNotes on the wiki, the next
>>> steps
>>> are:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I also propose to merge any significant and relevant differences between
>> README.rst in the repository and the BloodhoundInstall wiki page into the
>> BloodhoundInstall wiki page, so that we have a single source of
>> documentation. The file in the repository can point to the wiki page, as
>> we
>> propose to do for the ReleaseNotes.
>>
>> I'll wait until later this week before starting on any of these changes.
>> Please try to raise any issues or alternative ideas you have before then.
>>
>>
> While I think that it is a good idea to have the online pages as
> canonical, personally I would probably generate the content of README and
> RELEASE_NOTES in a release from the online pages. Adding a link to the
> appropriate pages on the wiki, specifying those as where the most up to
> date information will be would then make sense. Perhaps that is being over
> cautious but, then again, I have not noticed any open source projects where
> a RELEASE_NOTES or CHANGES file was not part of the source package. My
> survey is probably not wide enough though.
>
> Talking of all this, we are obviously going to have to start maintaining a
> set of online versions of pages at some point so it might be worth taking
> that into account with whichever approach we take.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
I think that probably makes sense. If the release notes and install steps
are pulled from the wiki in plain text, they should be fairly readable,
however we could also look into exporting them as HTML (might require
installing a plugin on i.a.o), or using ReST markup on the wiki page (using
the rst wiki processor) and formatting to HTML after the plain text is
exported and the WikiProcessor stripped from the page content. The downside
to using ReST is having yet another markup language, and possibly making it
more difficult for users to contribute to BloodhoundInstall.
Does anyone have suggestions on which might work better?
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.6
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 15/07/13 10:02, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/12/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12.07.2013 01:48, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>>>>>> Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new
>>>>> release,
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's the case, then we're doing something wrong. Release notes
>>>>> should not be part of the release tarball -- that should contain a
>>>>> /link/ to the release notes, so that any errata can be applied to the
>>>>> "live" release notes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subversion keeps release notes in the project site repository. BH could
>>>>> have wiki pages with release notes -- only editable by committers, of
>>>>> course.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Brane
>>>>>
>>>> Keeping release notes on the wiki sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>> fwiw +
>>>
>>>> On a related note, at some point we should do something about our
>>> diverging
>>>> installation instructions on the wiki (1) and in the repository (2). I
>>> vote
>>>> for using the wiki in this case as well. This was recently brought to
>>> our
>>>> attention again by a user (3).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (1) https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/BloodhoundInstall
>>>> (2)
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/trunk/installer/README.rst
>>>> (3) http://markmail.org/message/pa6go7siozxtouje
>>>>
>>> There's a recent conversation in trac-users ML that seems to be related
>>> to this
>>>
>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51772?page=last
>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51804
>>
>> If everyone agrees to keeping the ReleaseNotes on the wiki, the next steps
>> are:
>> [...]
>>
> I also propose to merge any significant and relevant differences between
> README.rst in the repository and the BloodhoundInstall wiki page into the
> BloodhoundInstall wiki page, so that we have a single source of
> documentation. The file in the repository can point to the wiki page, as we
> propose to do for the ReleaseNotes.
>
> I'll wait until later this week before starting on any of these changes.
> Please try to raise any issues or alternative ideas you have before then.
>
While I think that it is a good idea to have the online pages as
canonical, personally I would probably generate the content of README
and RELEASE_NOTES in a release from the online pages. Adding a link to
the appropriate pages on the wiki, specifying those as where the most up
to date information will be would then make sense. Perhaps that is being
over cautious but, then again, I have not noticed any open source
projects where a RELEASE_NOTES or CHANGES file was not part of the
source package. My survey is probably not wide enough though.
Talking of all this, we are obviously going to have to start maintaining
a set of online versions of pages at some point so it might be worth
taking that into account with whichever approach we take.
Cheers,
Gary
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 12.07.2013 01:48, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>> >> > Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new
>> >> release,
>> >>
>> >> If that's the case, then we're doing something wrong. Release notes
>> >> should not be part of the release tarball -- that should contain a
>> >> /link/ to the release notes, so that any errata can be applied to the
>> >> "live" release notes.
>> >>
>> >> Subversion keeps release notes in the project site repository. BH could
>> >> have wiki pages with release notes -- only editable by committers, of
>> >> course.
>> >>
>> >> -- Brane
>> >>
>> >
>> > Keeping release notes on the wiki sounds good to me.
>> >
>>
>> fwiw +
>>
>> > On a related note, at some point we should do something about our
>> diverging
>> > installation instructions on the wiki (1) and in the repository (2). I
>> vote
>> > for using the wiki in this case as well. This was recently brought to
>> our
>> > attention again by a user (3).
>> >
>> >
>> > (1) https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/BloodhoundInstall
>> > (2)
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/trunk/installer/README.rst
>> > (3) http://markmail.org/message/pa6go7siozxtouje
>> >
>>
>> There's a recent conversation in trac-users ML that seems to be related
>> to this
>>
>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51772?page=last
>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51804
>
>
> If everyone agrees to keeping the ReleaseNotes on the wiki, the next steps
> are:
> [...]
>
I also propose to merge any significant and relevant differences between
README.rst in the repository and the BloodhoundInstall wiki page into the
BloodhoundInstall wiki page, so that we have a single source of
documentation. The file in the repository can point to the wiki page, as we
propose to do for the ReleaseNotes.
I'll wait until later this week before starting on any of these changes.
Please try to raise any issues or alternative ideas you have before then.
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12.07.2013 01:48, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> >> > Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new
> >> release,
> >>
> >> If that's the case, then we're doing something wrong. Release notes
> >> should not be part of the release tarball -- that should contain a
> >> /link/ to the release notes, so that any errata can be applied to the
> >> "live" release notes.
> >>
> >> Subversion keeps release notes in the project site repository. BH could
> >> have wiki pages with release notes -- only editable by committers, of
> >> course.
> >>
> >> -- Brane
> >>
> >
> > Keeping release notes on the wiki sounds good to me.
> >
>
> fwiw +
>
> > On a related note, at some point we should do something about our
> diverging
> > installation instructions on the wiki (1) and in the repository (2). I
> vote
> > for using the wiki in this case as well. This was recently brought to our
> > attention again by a user (3).
> >
> >
> > (1) https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/BloodhoundInstall
> > (2)
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/trunk/installer/README.rst
> > (3) http://markmail.org/message/pa6go7siozxtouje
> >
>
> There's a recent conversation in trac-users ML that seems to be related to
> this
>
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51772?page=last
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51804
If everyone agrees to keeping the ReleaseNotes on the wiki, the next steps
are:
* Restrict access to [1] using FineGrainedPermsisions [2]. I don't have
the elevated permissions to make these changes so I'll need help from
someone that can install ConfigObj on the server (if not already
installed), create the authz file and make the changes that require
TRAC_ADMIN. A forthcoming enhancement [3] to AccountManagerPlugin should
help with maintaining the authz file.
* Replace content of RELEASE_NOTES file with a link to [1].
* Add link to BloodhoundReleaseNotes on WikiStart [4].
Anything else?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/BloodhoundReleaseNotes
[2] https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/TracFineGrainedPermissions
[3] http://trac-hacks.org/ticket/9947
[4] https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 7/12/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12.07.2013 01:48, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>> > Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new
>> release,
>>
>> If that's the case, then we're doing something wrong. Release notes
>> should not be part of the release tarball -- that should contain a
>> /link/ to the release notes, so that any errata can be applied to the
>> "live" release notes.
>>
>> Subversion keeps release notes in the project site repository. BH could
>> have wiki pages with release notes -- only editable by committers, of
>> course.
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>
> Keeping release notes on the wiki sounds good to me.
>
fwiw +
> On a related note, at some point we should do something about our diverging
> installation instructions on the wiki (1) and in the repository (2). I vote
> for using the wiki in this case as well. This was recently brought to our
> attention again by a user (3).
>
>
> (1) https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/BloodhoundInstall
> (2) http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/trunk/installer/README.rst
> (3) http://markmail.org/message/pa6go7siozxtouje
>
There's a recent conversation in trac-users ML that seems to be related to this
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51772?page=last
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51804
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Apache™ Bloodhound contributor
http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Featured article:
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache
Bloodhound 0.6
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 12.07.2013 01:48, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> > Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new
> release,
>
> If that's the case, then we're doing something wrong. Release notes
> should not be part of the release tarball -- that should contain a
> /link/ to the release notes, so that any errata can be applied to the
> "live" release notes.
>
> Subversion keeps release notes in the project site repository. BH could
> have wiki pages with release notes -- only editable by committers, of
> course.
>
> -- Brane
>
Keeping release notes on the wiki sounds good to me.
On a related note, at some point we should do something about our diverging
installation instructions on the wiki (1) and in the repository (2). I vote
for using the wiki in this case as well. This was recently brought to our
attention again by a user (3).
(1) https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/BloodhoundInstall
(2) http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/trunk/installer/README.rst
(3) http://markmail.org/message/pa6go7siozxtouje
Re: A tiny detail wrt 0.6 release WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.6
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 12.07.2013 01:48, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new release,
If that's the case, then we're doing something wrong. Release notes
should not be part of the release tarball -- that should contain a
/link/ to the release notes, so that any errata can be applied to the
"live" release notes.
Subversion keeps release notes in the project site repository. BH could
have wiki pages with release notes -- only editable by committers, of
course.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane@wandisco.com