Great thanks to folks with votes and the comments. As a recap of current replies we have received, we have opened a list of issues to be fixed for OpenWhisk in the coming release or further releases:
1. Add the tutorial for 0.9.0 to build and deploy locally with source code https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/197, we will resolve it for 0.9.0 2. Add the instruction on how to verify the license header for each valid source code file https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/196, we will resolve it for 0.9.0 3. Add scripts to make download, unzip and installation of source code easier https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/198, we will resolve it for 0.9.0 4. Add the instruction to the private key and credentials https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/issues/3800, we will resolve it for 0.9.0 5. Renaming the package from whisk.* into org.apache.openwhisk.* https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/issues/3797 We need to defer it for next release, since all the repos depend on the naming convention so far. It takes great effort and collaboration, because it affects existing offerings. Regarding how many repositories we are going to release, we decided to continue with the release of 13 repositories, after my discussions with many OpenWhiskers. All the 13 repos by far are great intelligent assets, which have been evolving during the past months or even years. They all play important roles to make openwhisk complete, and users/contributors are longing to see them distributed. Contributors in OpenWhisk have done great work to all of them and we are confident with source code, and there will be more openwhisk repositories in future, as openwhisk attracts more contributors with good ideas. Based on my experiences with cooperating with people from Apache, I also believe that Apache members are passionate about technologies and desire to try out new projects, by fulfilling their duties with their evaluations and feedback. Except the issues we have above, does anyone have any other concerns we need to take into account for the 0.9.0 release? If so, this is the chance to raise it; if not, we shall proceed the, after we made the minor fixes to the above listed issues. Thank you. 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 Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States -----"Matt Rutkowski" <mrutk...@us.ibm.com> wrote: ----- To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org From: "Matt Rutkowski" <mrutk...@us.ibm.com> Date: 06/21/2018 12:08PM Cc: "Vincent S Hou" <s...@us.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating Hi Bertrand, >>>> ...Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build dependent >>>> on the other parts as I mentioned earlier... >>Right, it if cannot be built that's a problem - but if you say that I >>suppose there's a build order that must be followed? >>If that's correct those overall build instructions should be included >>with the set of release archives. As required, the main openwhisk README (and supporting) docs include instructions on how to build (and tooling that makes it quite easy). We can open an issue to better document suggest manual build order. Will talk to Vincent to see if he has time today as I am leaving soon to return Monday. -mr From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 06/21/2018 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating Hi Matt, On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:27 PM Matt Rutkowski <mrutk...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > ...Are you saying you believe the Incubator PMC > will fail us strictly due to having 13 tgz/tar files vs. 1 for a first > release?... I don't know (and someone's welcome to ask on the general@incubator.a.o list to find out), but that looks unusual to me, and more work for reviewers that might need to unpack 13 archives to find similar issues in several of them. That's why I focused on just one archive here, and found a few interesting things already - the other 12 archives have not been useful for my initial review. > ...Are you saying they need to be "eased into the concept" because we will > have 13 (now and more eventually); at some point the board will be exposed > to multiples... No, it's just a practical question and fairness for the reviewers, where multiple archives might not say much more than one about the readiness of OpenWhisk to make Apache Releases. The ASF Board is not involved with releases, it's just the Incubator PMC in this case, for a podling. > ...Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build dependent > on the other parts as I mentioned earlier... Right, it if cannot be built that's a problem - but if you say that I suppose there's a build order that must be followed? If that's correct those overall build instructions should be included with the set of release archives. -Bertrand
