Releasing 0.2 on 2011.03.21

[Austin Ziegler]

Notwithstanding my next message, I'd like to get a new release out the
door ASAP. This will bring in all of the changes we have in place now
and move the project from a dual-licensing scheme to just the MIT
license.

I've integrated all of the stuff that was in the pull queue, plus a
few stylistic changes I had implemented in my own branch but never
integrated due to lack of time.

If you guys look at the fork queue (I'm not sure who has access),
you'll see a lot of interesting but hard-to-apply changes.

If there are changes that we believe should be in the next release,
let's get them in there by Sunday 3.20 for a Monday night 3.21
release.

So: We're releasing on 3.21. If there are further changes that would
be good to have in place, let's get them set up and ready now.

-a
--
Austin Ziegler • halos...@gmail.com • aus...@halostatue.ca
http://www.halostatue.ca/ • http://twitter.com/halostatue

[R. O'Connell]

For 0.2 we should probably remove everything in my repo and place a
readme to point to the net-ldap one. There's quite the number of
watchers on it, so deleting it wouldn't be prudent.
Also, instead of directly forking from roryo/ruby-net-ldap, shouldn't
it be a brand new repo with a pull of the old ruby-net-ldap pushed
into it? That would keep all the git and svn history but not show
that it was forked from the old one.

Also we're abandoning Rubyforge in favor of Github right? I'm all for
that, I never liked the Sourceforge/Rubyforge interface or way of
working.

On Mar 18, 8:18 am, Austin Ziegler <halosta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Notwithstanding my next message, I'd like to get a new release out the
> door ASAP. This will bring in all of the changes we have in place now
> and move the project from a dual-licensing scheme to just the MIT
> license.
>
> I've integrated all of the stuff that was in the pull queue, plus a
> few stylistic changes I had implemented in my own branch but never
> integrated due to lack of time.
>
> If you guys look at the fork queue (I'm not sure who has access),
> you'll see a lot of interesting but hard-to-apply changes.
>
> If there are changes that we believe should be in the next release,
> let's get them in there by Sunday 3.20 for a Monday night 3.21
> release.
>
> So: We're releasing on 3.21. If there are further changes that would
> be good to have in place, let's get them set up and ready now.
>
> -a
> --

> Austin Ziegler • halosta...@gmail.com • aus...@halostatue.cahttp://www.halostatue.ca/•http://twitter.com/halostatue

[Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting]

On 3/19/11 11:49 PM, R. O'Connell wrote:
> For 0.2 we should probably remove everything in my repo and place a
> readme to point to the net-ldap one. There's quite the number of
> watchers on it, so deleting it wouldn't be prudent.

I agree.

> Also, instead of directly forking from roryo/ruby-net-ldap, shouldn't
> it be a brand new repo with a pull of the old ruby-net-ldap pushed
> into it?

I suggest creating an organization on github.

--
Regards, Lars Tobias

[Austin Ziegler]

2011/3/20 Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting <li...@relatime.no>:

> On 3/19/11 11:49 PM, R. O'Connell wrote:
>>
>> For 0.2 we should probably remove everything in my repo and place a
>> readme to point to the net-ldap one.  There's quite the number of
>> watchers on it, so deleting it wouldn't be prudent.
> I agree.

We can do that.

>> Also, instead of directly forking from roryo/ruby-net-ldap, shouldn't
>> it be a brand new repo with a pull of the old ruby-net-ldap pushed
>> into it?
> I suggest creating an organization on github.

We have one that I will be renaming shortly per a separate discussion
(ruby-ldap -> ruby-net-ldap).

[James Hewitt]

I just put in a pull request for a missing history item for 0.2.0.

James.

[Rory O'Connell]

I merged it, straightforward enough.  Thanks!

-- 
Rory O'Connell
Sent with Sparrow

[James Hewitt]

IMO, I don't think we need to hide your repo from the history. Doesn't
matter where it was forked from.

Not that I have strong feelings either way. If you think github would
handle a brand new repo better, go for it.

James.

[Austin Ziegler]

…and here I just went through the trouble of creating a new repo.

0.2 is released. I'm making the announcements now. http://rubyldap.com/

I debated zapping the organization and re-creating or asking for a
rename (ruby-ldap to ruby-net-ldap), but in the end I left it as is
because the domains I registered are rubyldap.{com,info,org,net} and
the folks who take over governance of the project can change their
minds, but IMO it might not be a bad idea to consider this the other
way: why not invite the devs behind ruby-ldap (C code) to join the
overall project?

Anyhoo. I should be done in the next twenty minutes. Then, we can talk
about transition later this week.

I'd like to have the new leadership team in place by the end of March,
9 days from now.

-a

--