Agree, Vincent should be first Release Manager. Do we have a champagne bottle somewhere?
Kind regards, Matt From: Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 06/20/2018 01:36 PM Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk Vincent, If it's not already clear :-), I think should do the honors, and be release manager for the first release :-) I'm out most of the month of July (vacation). But will volunteer to do a release in August Thread to dev list for vote should have the following Subject "[VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk (incubating) version 0.9.0" And include the details of the location of the RC, and the instructions for voting including the deadline of 72 hours. Release Candidate 1 should be located in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/ It's a requirement that artifacts need to include the string "incubating" as part of the version. Since we are trying to use semantic versioning "incubating" should be at the end. dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-apigateway-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-cli-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz ... We should remove "incubator", and put "incubating" at the end. Also I would remove "sources" from the name. Only sources are distributed on apache servers. After graduation, we stop using "-incubating" -cs On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:39 PM Vincent S Hou <s...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > So far, we can formally name the first version incubator-0.9.0 to indicate > the incubator status as well, and use subversion like rc1, rc2, etc, before > moving the artifacts to the final release SVN URL. > > For incubator-0.9.0-rc1, the package of source code openwhisk in the dev > SVN URL is named after openwhisk-apigateway-incubator-0.9.0-sources.tar.gz > under the folder of apache-openwhisk-incubator-0.9.0-rc1. > > Shall we include the name "incubator" as part of the version name? Or it > does not sound attractive. > > > Best wishes. > Vincent Hou (侯胜博) > > Advisory Software Engineer, OpenWhisk Contributor, Open Technology, IBM > Cloud > > Notes ID: Vincent S Hou/Raleigh/IBM, E-mail: s...@us.ibm.com, > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 <(919)%20254-7182> > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd > < https://maps.google.com/?q=4205+S+Miami+Blvd&entry=gmail&source=g > > (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States > > -----James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com> wrote: ----- > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > From: James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com> > Date: 06/20/2018 01:17PM > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > 0.9 makes sense to me. > > Something to think about it - what would constitute a 1.0 release? Whilst > the platform is still evolving rapidly, it has been in production on > multiple providers for over 12 months. What things would we like to tick > off before reaching this stage? > > On 20 June 2018 at 17:38, Michele Sciabarra <openwh...@sciabarra.com> > wrote: > > > I agree with 0.9.0 > > > > -- > > Michele Sciabarra > > openwh...@sciabarra.com > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:37 PM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > > I agree with 0.9.0. > > > > > > -- > > > Michele Sciabarra > > > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski <mrutk...@us.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas > >
