+1 to version 1.0.0. I'll have new tar-zip calls ready shortly. - Dave
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Rod Simpson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Sungju and Nate make good points. I mean, the release may be > rough around the edges, but we have been running UG in Production for over > 2 1/2 years. Same with others. The product has hardened and stabilized > significantly during that time. Perhaps we would be selling ourselves > short (and the product) by not going with 1.0. > > I propose that we go with 1.0 as Nate and Sungju suggest. > > > > > -- > Rod Simpson > @rockerston <https://twitter.com/rockerston> > rodsimpson.com > > On August 22, 2014 at 4:50:46 AM, Dave ([email protected]) wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Sungju Jin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > I'm confused release version. What's correct version 0.0.29 or 1.0? > > > > The version can be anything that we as a community want it to be. I picked > 0.0.29 because it is the current version of the stack. Also, note that the > the release contains SDKs and each of them has its own version number as > well, I did not change any of those. > > Personally, I think 0.0.29 is an appropriate version number for this > release because the release is pretty rough and imperfect. It is just a > tar-ball of our source code. There is no installer, there is no user guide > or install guide -- except for the various README files in the source. > > In future releases, we may want to package things quite differently. > Perhaps we should have a nice installer and a user guide. Perhaps we > should > have separate releases for SDKs, each with its own release version number. > Those are things we should discuss here on the mailing list. > > - Dave > > > > 2014-08-22 11:51 GMT+09:00 Rod Simpson <[email protected]>: > > Dave, > > > > This is awesome! This is what has been done so far: > > > > [DONE] 1. remaining PRs must be acked (that are relevant to this > process) > > [DONE] 2. release must be tagged > > [DONE] 3. verify that checksums and php signatures are valid > > [DONE] 4. make sure release follows branding guidelines > > [WORKING] 5. document this process in a wiki page > > [DONE] 6. put the release files and pgp signatures here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/usergrid > > [PENDING] 7. call for a vote on the release > > > > I am also doing this: > > 8. Add release info page to Usergrid incubating website. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Rod Simpson > > @rockerston > > rodsimpson.com > > > > On August 21, 2014 at 5:39:07 PM, Dave ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > There was a small problem with the upload. I should have the files in > place > > in the next 30 minutes. > > > > - Dave > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Working in the master branch I have changed the version number of the > > > stack to 0.0.29, added a Maven assembly to create the source release > and > > a > > > script to sign the release files. > > > > > > A first release candidate of Apache Usergrid 0.0.29 (incubating) is > > > available here and signed by me, along with the signature files: > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/usergrid/ > > > > > > I also tagged master with "0.0.29rc1" > > > > > > Mentors (and others): anything else we need to do before calling for a > > > vote? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > - Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sungju Jin > - Hacker, Apache Usergrid Committer, OSCON Speaker > - Twitter : http://twitter.com/geekbeast > - Blog : http://softwaregeeks.org > >
