Done. Check the PR -- Michele Sciabarra mich...@sciabarra.com
----- Original message ----- From: Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Subject: Re: ActionLoop 1.0.2 with versioning and support for "more"... Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 11:04 PM I like the idea of using the major digit like a Dave suggested actionloop-v2:tag it matches the other runtimes like nodejs-v8:tag and nodejs-v10:tag - Carlos Santana @csantanapr > On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:14 PM, Michele Sciabarra <mich...@sciabarra.com> wrote: > > The reason is to distinguish when there are significant changes. The runtime > is now built statically but the old one was not so if you want to use in an > alpine images you have to use this version. I do not plan to change the name > all the time only when there are significant changes, and should be rare. > Using a v2 is fine for me. > -- > Michele Sciabarra > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > ----- Original message ----- > From: David P Grove <gro...@us.ibm.com> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Subject: Re: ActionLoop 1.0.2 with versioning and support for "more"... > Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 8:18 PM > > "Michele Sciabarra" <mich...@sciabarra.com> wrote on 02/27/2019 02:04:19 > PM: >> >> First and before all, I changed the name to actionloop-v1.0.2 so any >> build depending on it can retrieve the right version... (more >> version, if there is any potentially breaking change, will use a >> different name). >> > > I understand the desire to change the name. I don't like embedding a full > semantic version into the image name (as opposed to the image tag). > Perhaps actionloop-v2 is an acceptable compromise? > > We should be doing proper Apache releases of our runtimes and getting the > semvar into the image tags, not the image names. > > --dave >
