brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Prepare 0.8.0-M1 ?
Date Tue, 01 Sep 2015 20:46:54 GMT
We also need to make sure we incorporate all the feedback from the 
incubator vote on the previous release. I will go through it again this 
evening.

Hadrian

On 09/01/2015 03:53 PM, Richard Downer wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Are you up for being RM for this one?
>
> Richard.
>
> On 1 September 2015 at 17:03, Alex Heneveld
> <alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all-
>>
>> +1 to no need for milestones.  There are quite a few goodies in any case
>> beyond the package refactoring which is huge!  See them here:
>>
>> https://brooklyn.incubator.apache.org/v/0.8.0-SNAPSHOT/misc/release-notes.html
>>
>>          [still uploading so you may have to wait a bit]
>>
>> I've compiled new release notes and uploaded updated snapshot docs.  This
>> includes updated catalog items and javadocs.  I've also made the downloads
>> and versions more prominent (and fixed broken links), completed persistence
>> compatibility for the package refactoring (#873), and merged a few other
>> PR's outstanding.
>>
>> The release notes include a MIGRATION GUIDE, linked from above.
>>
>> If there are any last comments, or other NEW FEATURES deserve a mention,
>> speak up.
>>
>> Otherwise roll on 0.8.0-RC1 !
>>
>> Best
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/09/2015 08:54, Richard Downer wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd be in favour of 0.8.0. It'd be great to iterate much faster on
>>> releases. I assume under semantic versioning that we don't have to
>>> stop when we reach 0.9 :-)
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:56, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for 0.8.0. I don't see a lot of value in a milestone release at this
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>> Alex, re: package split, I don't think so, but even if we discover
>>>> something
>>>> it shouldn't be a blocker.
>>>>
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/31/2015 12:55 PM, Aled Sage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> We should aim for a 0.8.0 release candidate soon as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> What else do we need after an M1 before we can have 0.8.0? Should we
>>>>> just go straight for 0.8.0?!
>>>>>
>>>>> Aled
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31/08/2015 17:31, Alex Heneveld wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that the package rename is pretty much done, I'd like to get
an
>>>>>> 080-M1 out, maybe kick this off tomorrow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will be nice for users who have been disrupted by the rename!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With #873 ready for review we can even offer backwards compatibility
>>>>>> for persisted state, although any user java code will have to have
>>>>>> imports optimized (or if you prefer, run a `sed -i` over the code
>>>>>> based on `deserializedClassRenames.properties` -- we should document
>>>>>> this in the release notes -- any volunteers for that?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll go through the existing PR's and finish the scan of plans/docs
>>>>>> (as discussed at #873), but if there are any other pieces of work
let
>>>>>> us know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Hadrian -- are there more renames to come to remove the OSGi split
>>>>>> packages?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
>> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>>
>> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
>> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
>> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from
>> your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
>> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
>> message after it was sent.
>>
>> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
>> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward
>> transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not
>> adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by
>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should carry
>> out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.

Mime
View raw message