brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:52:52 GMT
That's some good news. Thanks for taking the time to look at this Andrea.
I also have some progress to share. Today I was finally able to build Brooklyn with all tests
passing (consistently at that) - on a branch that had all my recent PRs. Thanks Geoff for
reviewing and merging all of them.
I'm currently checking whether our LICENSE files need an update because of updated dependencies
and fixing the corresponding scripts to work with the current project structure. Next will
turn my attention to testing the jclouds 1.9.3 PRs. As soon as they are merged we can have
our first RC.

Also would be nice to include a proper fix for what #452 [1] tried to solve (but failed at).
Any other suggestions for PRs to include in the RC are welcome.

Our change log needs some love so any help there will be greatly appreciated.

Svet.

> On 24.11.2016 г., at 15:16, Andrea Turli <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> jclouds 1.9.3 is officially out -- see
> http://markmail.org/thread/qlapnppmfbilje7p for more details
> 
> ----
> 
> FYI @bostko already created this PR to bump jclouds version
> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/457
> 
> I've generated the dependency:list from tag rel/jclouds-1.9.2 and
> rel/jclouds-1.9.3 from jclouds/jclouds repos (see
> https://gist.github.com/andreaturli/b7c178519ab4d029d562643426a2738d and
> https://gist.github.com/andreaturli/8d54e4340ef0a4c650022396b4b54b89) and
> apart from org.apache.jclouds versions I can't see any new version for the
> transitive dependencies.
> 
> ----
> 
> I've also checked the swift vs openstack-swift issue when targeting the
> brooklyn persistence to IBM SoftLayer Object Storage: it works fine with
> jclouds 1.9.3 and jclouds 2.0.0 so this shouldn't be an issue for the
> release. (see https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-examples/pull/90)
> 
> HTH,
> Andrea
> 
> On 18 November 2016 at 12:19, Andrea Turli <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi there,
>> 
>> I've released the Apache jclouds 1.9.3-rc1 (see [1] and [2] for more
>> details)
>> 
>> Please download, test and vote if you can!
>> 
>> Andrea
>> 
>> [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/42f3a91008890939cf344f35320f86
>> bcc48f814119655d7347c9bcca@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E
>> [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/94981b8f456785ffea640af3be9207
>> 103bb4b7ee2f6d5bb783e98c2c@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E
>> 
>> On 17 November 2016 at 19:01, Duncan Johnston Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@
>> cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1 Andrea thanks
>>> 
>>> Duncan Johnston-Watt
>>> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
>>> 
>>> Twitter | @duncanjw
>>> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
>>> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
>>> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
>>> 
>>> On 17 November 2016 at 06:09, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1, sounds great - thanks Andrea!
>>>> 
>>>> There are some really import jclouds fixes in 1.9.3-SNAPSHOT (or 2.0.0)
>>>> that we want, such as an OutOfMemoryError deploying to Softlayer [1].
>>>> 
>>>> It's worth hanging fire on Brooklyn 0.10.0 until we have a jclouds 1.9.3
>>>> release.
>>>> 
>>>> In the meantime, we should still get our own house in order by doing the
>>>> first of the steps below (i.e. dealing with open PRs; ensuring no-one
>>> has
>>>> any imminent important contributions to make for 0.10.0, etc).
>>>> 
>>>> Aled
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-364
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 17/11/2016 11:37, Alex Heneveld wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> That would be a great solution Andrea!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Alex
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Nov 2016 08:18, "Andrea Turli" <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm happy to volunteer for releasing an official jclouds 1.9.3 which
>>> may
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> the half-house solution here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> wdyt?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 08:25, Svetoslav Neykov <
>>>>>> svetoslav.neykov@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is going to be the first release that actually works in Karaf.
>>> The
>>>>>>> docs are still assuming classic though so I suggest we keep
>>> recommending
>>>>>>> the classic distribution for 0.10.0.
>>>>>>> For next release let's plan on updating the docs and switching
the
>>>>>>> recommended distribution to the Karaf based one.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Svet.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 16.11.2016 г., at 13:22, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's far past time that we did a Brooklyn 0.10.0 release!
I suggest
>>> we
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> aim for that soon.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> To that end, I suggest the following steps:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * Deal with open PRs:
>>>>>>>>     o People shout out about any PRs you think are very important
>>> to
>>>>>>>>       be merged, before that release.
>>>>>>>>     o Review open PRs
>>>>>>>>       (for any that won't get merged into 0.10.0, clearly
mark
>>> them as
>>>>>>>>       such and say why).
>>>>>>>> * Any pending/remaining work:
>>>>>>>>     o Give people until Friday evening (uk time) to submit
any
>>> other
>>>>>>>>       very important PRs that are being working on.
>>>>>>>>     o People shout out about any known issues that they see
as
>>>>>>>>       blockers for a release.
>>>>>>>> * Do some initial testing, using master (before Friday).
>>>>>>>> * Aim to produce a first release candidate on Friday evening
(uk
>>> time).
>>>>>>>> * Do the usual QA/fix cycle until the release is ready.
>>>>>>>> * Write release notes, etc.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Of the first steps, reviewing the PRs is a big piece of work!
If you
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> have time to help, then please lend a hand by reviewing and/or
>>> testing
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> PRs, and commenting on them.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't think we should try to squeeze lots of additional
PRs into
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 0.10.0 - there is already a huge amount in there compared to
0.9.0!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Richard, are our release process docs up-to-date at [1]?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Aled
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [1] http://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/committers/release-
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> process/index.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message