brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Downer <rich...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Prepare 0.8.0-M1 ?
Date Tue, 01 Sep 2015 19:53:07 GMT
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