RE: [Takeaction-devel] Re: Takeaction-devel digest, Vol 1 #28 - 1 msg

[Mike G. <mi...@op...>]

Howdy Justin,

On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 10:34, jus...@hr... wrote:
> "Can you put up a tarball on SF?  The CVS probably would have been useful
> to watch your development process."
> Not sure if this has been brought up before, but I can`t seem to find any mechanism in sf.net, to allow file uploads. Maybe there`s a missing link in the "Files" section (I can see the links to the Statement of Scope) but nothing else.

You can get access to it through the admin pages.  I think when you are
logged in you should be able to click through to it here:
https://sourceforge.net/project/admin/editpackages.php?group_id=74559

> Richard and Mike have been working on the code, and development is still ongoing. I`ve let them manage concurrent versions between themselves, but I`ve asked Richard to put up a tarball on sf.net. We`re all pretty busy at the moment as well, trying to mould the "documentation" into the mysterious and confusing shape our advisors want it in before Wednesday. 

Right.  Deadlines, advisors, documentation..  

> Anyway, in light of this sf.net problem, I`ve put the first version of our code (pre-"freeze") on my server so you can see where we started (http://supaju.com/ta.tar.gz). It started very independent from Back-End, so we could test our components before integrating. The interfaces are very basic at this point, and a few features (PDF/RTF download, User Account modification) have not been implemented yet, but these are things we are currently working on.

So at the moment this stands as an independent script and not as a
module of Back-end?  There are advantages to this, but also big
disadvantages as the migration work will be rather difficult.

Will there sql provided or INSTALL notes in the next version?

> With respects to the documentation: "How has it changed since April 11th?"
> The only major changes are that algorithms and physical implementation deails are now included. Evidently, an "Analysis Document" (last term) describes purely logical elements of system architecture, whereas a "Design Document (this term) takes that logical architecture and adds implementation specifics (variables types, languages, database types). The diagrams still logically show the system`s behaviour, but now details like "PHP" and "SQL Table" are included. The difference is subtle, but this is evidently what is expected of us. 

Ok..  I'll review it for you today then.  How am I supposed to sign off
on it electronically?  Will an email to the team suffice?

> "Which version of Back-End have you been using?"
> To be honest, I don`t know: I left that up to Mike and Richard. Does 5.4 sound right? Mike has fell ill over the weekend, so I`ve lost touch. I`ll let you know ASAP.

Sorry to hear about Mike.  .5.4 would be alright.  the CVS version would
be better.  If you haven't integrated it yet use the CVS version.  Ask
if you've got questions.  I'll be happy to help.

> "Busy, about to release a 7.0.1 release of Back-End.  Have cleaned up a
> bunch of code within it."
> Glad to hear! There was a bit of Back-End related confusion last week, when we were starting integration. Details to follow. Hoping Back-End 7.0.1 will clear things up. :)

You can post questions to this list or the Back-End.org mailing list if
there are more questions.

Mike
-- 
Mike Gifford, OpenConcept Consulting
Free Software for Social Change -> http://www.openconcept.ca
Featured Client Bill Blaikie, MP -> http://www.billblaikie.ca
To find a fault is easy; to do better may be difficult -Plutarch