I would like to use `0.x.0`, I'm ok with `0.9.0` And practice and polish and streamline/automate the announcements and install instructions (webiste, twitter).
I would like to reserve the 1.0.0 for a big splash announcement Also have for release 1.0.0 an easy and clear instructions on the website, where people can go there hit download version x.y.z, follow a simple INSTALL README, that with a single/couple of commands they can build and deploy using only the versions of the artifacts they just downloaded. Here is what I predict, that people from Incubating mailing list including PMC (assuming no experts on OpenWhisk) would try to do the following to provide a +1 vote. Things typically checked when someone votes: 1. incubating in binary and src release $version name artifacts 2. signatures and hashes correct 3. LICENSE is fine 4. NOTICE is OK. 5. no unexpected binary files 6. source files have headers 7. follow top level README and achieve the following 3 steps 8. 1. can build the release $version from source without any error 9. 2. can deploy what I built in previous step 10. 3. can run a hello demo action with the deployment from previous step I +1 moving forward with [VOTE] on dev list I think if we can do the first 6 steps, should be able to get a votes to release But in the future for release 1.0.0 if we don't have all 10 steps in place I will vote -1 -cs On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:25 AM Matt Rutkowski <mrutk...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Understand that we may not want people to infer too much from 1.0 > especially since we likely need to address formalizing the > versions/signatures of our APIs as well as SPIs. > > I would suggest what I often do in this case and use a nearer to 1.0 > version such as 0.9.0 which is perhaps a compromise (note you can bump the > 'x' in 0.x.0 any number of times you wish) and indicates we are "close" to > a 1.0. > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > -mr > > > > From: Rob Allen <r...@akrabat.com> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Date: 06/20/2018 09:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 15:29, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:28 PM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ...I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release... > > > > Big +1 to that, especially as initial releases may fail due to formal > > aspects, unrelated to their technical quality. > > FWiW, I'm also in the <1.0 camp. > > 1.0 is a commitment to backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that promise > can be made quite yet. > > Regards, > > Rob > > > > > >
