Would prefer 0.x.y first given the internal interface signatures (schema) are in flux and that was a community concern as well as expressed on the tech. int. calls immediately upon discussing releases.
At the very least we should document the SP interfaces that can be snapshotted inclusive of the source tar files which would tie them to that version. If there are SPIs that are in-flux we should note that clearly in release notes and perhaps have a strategy for forward compat. on these interfaces. -mr From: Rodric Rabbah <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 03/15/2018 07:24 AM Subject: Re: Upcoming OpenWhisk releases There are a few changes that affect the REST API and schema that we might want to consider since they are subject to ongoing work: 1. Log separation from the activation record (schema) 2. Result separation from the activation record (schema) 3. Treating code blobs as first class resources (API, schema) Internal APIs are fairly stable although some of the SPIs are work in progress. Do we have to go out with 1.x.y as first release or can we do 0.x.y first? -r > On Mar 15, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Carlos Santana <[email protected]> wrote: > > We should have “-incubating” at the end of the version number. As long we are incubating. After TLP we can drop the it > > Version should follow semver format and pratices. > MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH > > MAJOR=1 since it’s the first release. > > Controller/Whisk API denotes the version 1.y.z > > And we should try not to brake the API and all changes are additive to 1.x > > Yes common understanding and practice in versioning if the API needs to be broken further discussions would need to occur to have a 2.x > > > - Carlos Santana > @csantanapr > >> On Mar 15, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Michael Marth <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Carlos, >> >> Re the 1.0.0 in "1.0.0-incubating" below: I cannot recall a discussion on the actual version number for the first release (sorry, in case I missed it). >> I wonder whether we intend to follow SemVer. If yes, then releasing as 1.0 would mean we would not change the external APIs in an incompatible way (unless we go to 2.0, etc). Is this the common understanding? >> >> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this >> Michael >> >> >> >> On 15/03/18 12:17, "Carlos Santana" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes I agree Bertram 100% >> >> I have being following the Github issues and PRs in the issues and commits mailing lists >> >> No other discussions are going about release other than what’s in the release repo that Vincent and Daisy are attacking and the discussions that both are bringing to the dev mailing list. >> >> And yes I agree I think we are very close on automation to start kicking out our first 1.0.0-incubating RC1 :-) >> >> >> - Carlos Santana >> @csantanapr >> >>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> AFAICS releases have been discussed in your calls, with my incubation >>> mentor hat on I'd like to stress the importance of discussing those >>> here or at least exposing pointers to discussions here if they are >>> happening somewhere else, like in issue tracker tickets. >>> >>> I am consciously not following the Slack discussions as these are >>> meant to be throwaway and important stuff needs to be discussed here. >>> I suppose other mentors do the same so bringing these discussions here >>> will help gather feedback early and often to help OpenWhisk do good >>> Apache releases soon! >>> >>> Using a [mentors] subject line header is a good way to raise the >>> mentors attention when needed. >>> >>> HTH, >>> -Bertrand >> >>
