Hi all, On 16 November 2016 at 11:22, Aled Sage <aled.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > It's far past time that we did a Brooklyn 0.10.0 release! I suggest we aim > for that soon. > Definitely agree - our last release was in April, so about seven months ago. We certainly wouldn't want to wait any longer. It's not a ridiculous length of time, but it "feels" like Brooklyn has moved on a lot during that time, so there will be a lot in a new release. > Richard, are our release process docs up-to-date at [1]? > [1] http://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/committers/ > release-process/index.html > They are up-to-date on source control, but the website hasn't been republished. (Attention committers: if you merge a PR that changes the website, please also update the website!) However they have only been used once since graduation, so there are probably still areas for improvement. We'd also need to consider if the last 6-7 months have caused a need for the release process to change (e.g. adding `.deb` artifacts). I am happy to do the release again this time, but it would probably be wise for somebody else to do it this time (with me providing whatever support is needed - pairing etc.) On 16 November 2016 at 11:33, Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.neykov@ cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > Is including jclouds 2.0 too big of a change to consider, what do people > think? > If that's considered too risky then I suggest following with a 0.11.0 not > too long after, including jclouds 2.0. Changing the major version of any dependency sounds like a high risk change, but I am not involved closely in jclouds so I don't have an opinion on this change. However I do like the idea of a 0.11.0 following soon after - if the 0.10.0 sorts out any remaining gremlins in the release script and process, then a 0.11.0 release soon after would be a good test of a faster release cadence - but release cadence is a subject for a different thread :-) Richard.
