Thank Dave for the vote and comments. I am updating the doc now to make it more straightforward.
I vote +1 as well to release OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating rc2 module Checklist for reference: [ X ] Download links are valid.(Please disregard the md5 link, since we do not need it) [ X ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. [ X ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release. [ X ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo. [ X ] All files have license headers if necessary. [ X ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. 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 -----"David P Grove" <gro...@us.ibm.com> wrote: ----- To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org From: "David P Grove" <gro...@us.ibm.com> Date: 07/03/2018 06:22PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating rc2: main OpenWhisk module I vote +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating Checklist for reference: [ X ] Download links are valid. [ X ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. [ X ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release. [ X ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo. [ X ] All files have license headers if necessary. (assuming I ran scancode correctly...see below). [ X ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. I also verified that the release built on MacOS and that I could deploy it an invoke the echo message per the release documentation. Two very small things that could be improved in the release documentation file. I do not see either of these as release blockers (thus the +1 vote). (1) In the "Run OpenWhisk" section, it uses both `wsk` and `bin/wsk`. We should probably either say `$OPENWHISK_HOME/bin/wsk` uniformly or say that we assume that the user has put the wsk CLI on their path. (2) I think it would be better to include the exact commands for running scancode to verify that all files have license headers instead of referencing the scancode tutorial. For example, I am not 100% positive if by following the tutorial (see shell transcript below) really checked the right rules or if I needed to invoke scancode with a specific configuration file. --dave daves-mbp-3:incubator-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating dgrove$ python ~/code/openwhisk/incubator-openwhisk-utilities/scancode/scanCode.py . Reading configuration file [/Users/dgrove/code/openwhisk/incubator-openwhisk-utilities/scancode/scanCode.cfg]... Scanning files starting at [.]... All checks passed.
