> 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.)
I'd be happy to do the release with your help Richard. Svet. > On 16.11.2016 г., at 16:43, Richard Downer <rich...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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.
