.@us.ibm.com,
> > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 <(919)%20254-7182>
> > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United
> > States
> >
> > -----"Matt Rutkowski" wrote: -
> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> > From: &qu
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> From: "Matt Rutkowski"
> Date: 06/20/2018 03:05PM
> Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
>
> Agree, Vincent should be first Release Manager. Do we have a champagne
> bottle somewhere?
>
> Kind regards,
>
wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: "Matt Rutkowski"
Date: 06/20/2018 03:05PM
Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
Agree, Vincent should be first Release Manager. Do we have a champagne
bottle somewhere?
Kind regards,
Matt
From: Carlos Santana
To: dev@open
Agree, Vincent should be first Release Manager. Do we have a champagne
bottle somewhere?
Kind regards,
Matt
From: Carlos Santana
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 al
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 wrote:
> >
> > Can we go with 0.9.0?
> >
>
> 0.9.0 is fine with me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
s.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 wrote: -
> To: dev@openwhis
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 li
We need to also document a roadmap.
-r
> On Jun 20, 2018, at 1:23 PM, Carlos Santana wrote:
>
> Good question James
>
> I think we create a check box list for release 1.0.0 in the release repo
> and discuss
> items on the list would need help from folks to take ownership.
>
> We can even cre
Good question James
I think we create a check box list for release 1.0.0 in the release repo
and discuss
items on the list would need help from folks to take ownership.
We can even create github MileStone for each release, and we can create
today the 1.0.0 milestone and add issues to resolve befo
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,
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
On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski wrote:
>
> Can we go with 0.9.0?
>
0.9.0 is fine with me.
Regards,
Rob
bump the
> 'x' in 0.x.0 any number of times you wish) and indicates we are "close" to
> a 1.0.
>
> Can we go with 0.9.0?
>
> -mr
>
>
>
> From: Rob Allen
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 06/20/2018 09:46 AM
> Subject:
(note you can bump the
'x' in 0.x.0 any number of times you wish) and indicates we are "close" to
a 1.0.
Can we go with 0.9.0?
-mr
From: Rob Allen
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date: 06/20/2018 09:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of Open
> On 20 Jun 2018, at 15:29, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:28 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote:
>> ...I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release...
>
> Big +1 to that, especially as initial releases may fail due to formal
> aspects, unrelated to their technica
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:28 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote:
> ...I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release...
Big +1 to that, especially as initial releases may fail due to formal
aspects, unrelated to their technical quality.
-Bertrand
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:47 PM Vincent S Hou wrote:
> ...If you have any questions or concerns, please chime in with your
> comments...
No questions at this time but I'd like to remind people of the release
voting process for Apache Incubator podlings, roughly:
-The release candidates ar
ted
> States
> >
> > -----"David P Grove" wrote: -
> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> > From: "David P Grove"
> > Date: 06/20/2018 08:27AM
> > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
> >
> >
> >
>
ote: -
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> From: "David P Grove"
> Date: 06/20/2018 08:27AM
> Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
>
>
>
> "Vincent S Hou" wrote on 06/20/2018 06:47:25 AM:
>>
>> We are currently working on th
+1
Vincent
What do you mean by "There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be
released."
I think you mean repos/subcomponents
Dave,
This is source only release, which is what's required by ASF, literaly
taking the source control repository and doing a tar with it's content
excluding any files
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" wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: "David P Grove"
Date: 06/20/2018 08:27AM
Subject: Re: [Release] P
"Vincent S Hou" wrote on 06/20/2018 06:47:25 AM:
>
> We are currently working on the first release of OpenWhisk. The
> version name is called incubator-1.0.0, and the subversion is
> rc2(rc1 as a pilot, has been existing for while).
>
> There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be released.
> The
Hi OpenWhiskers,
We are currently working on the first release of OpenWhisk. The version name is
called incubator-1.0.0, and the subversion is rc2(rc1 as a pilot, has been
existing for while).
There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be released.
The PR in OpenWhisk release repo contains all th
23 matches
Mail list logo
