openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Upcoming OpenWhisk releases
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:28:35 GMT
Not sure what are the Apache policy if any about 0.x and 1.x

Do you have PRs or Issues for the 3 items below. 

It’s doesn’t matter if we go from 0.x to 1.x or 1.x to 2.x we have to discuss which items
are be included and waited on to make the cut to a new version.

So I’m OK with 0.x or 1.x if there is nonApache policy preventing. 

Your saying all 3 should be included in the jump of API major number change?

- Carlos Santana
@csantanapr

> On Mar 15, 2018, at 8:24 AM, Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There are a few changes that affect the REST API and schema that we might want to consider
since they are subject to ongoing work:
> 
> 1. Log separation from the activation record (schema)
> 2. Result separation from the activation record (schema)
> 3. Treating code blobs as first class resources (API, schema)
> 
> Internal APIs are fairly stable although some of the SPIs are work in progress. 
> 
> Do we have to go out with 1.x.y as first release or can we do 0.x.y first?
> 
> -r
> 
>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> We should have “-incubating” at the end of the version number. As long we are
incubating. After TLP we can drop the it
>> 
>> Version should follow semver format and pratices. 
>> MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
>> 
>> MAJOR=1 since it’s the first release. 
>> 
>> Controller/Whisk API denotes the version 1.y.z
>> 
>> And we should try not to brake the API and all changes are additive to 1.x
>> 
>> Yes common understanding and practice in versioning if the API needs to be broken
further discussions would need to occur to have a 2.x
>> 
>> 
>> - Carlos Santana
>> @csantanapr
>> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Michael Marth <mmarth@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Carlos,
>>> 
>>> Re the 1.0.0 in "1.0.0-incubating" below: I cannot recall a discussion on the
actual version number for the first release (sorry, in case I missed it).
>>> I wonder whether we intend to follow SemVer. If yes, then releasing as 1.0 would
mean we would not change the external APIs in an incompatible way (unless we go to 2.0, etc).
Is this the common understanding?
>>> 
>>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15/03/18 12:17, "Carlos Santana" <csantana23@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Yes I agree Bertram 100%
>>> 
>>>  I have being following the Github issues and PRs in the issues and commits mailing
lists 
>>> 
>>>  No other discussions are going about release other than what’s in the release
repo that Vincent and Daisy are attacking and the discussions that both are bringing to the
dev mailing list. 
>>> 
>>>  And yes I agree I think we are very close on automation to start kicking out
our first 1.0.0-incubating RC1 :-)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  - Carlos Santana
>>>  @csantanapr
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> AFAICS releases have been discussed in your calls, with my incubation
>>>> mentor hat on I'd like to stress the importance of discussing those
>>>> here or at least exposing pointers to discussions here if they are
>>>> happening somewhere else, like in issue tracker tickets.
>>>> 
>>>> I am consciously not following the Slack discussions as these are
>>>> meant to be throwaway and important stuff needs to be discussed here.
>>>> I suppose other mentors do the same so bringing these discussions here
>>>> will help gather feedback early and often to help OpenWhisk do good
>>>> Apache releases soon!
>>>> 
>>>> Using a [mentors] subject line header is a good way to raise the
>>>> mentors attention when needed.
>>>> 
>>>> HTH,
>>>> -Bertrand
>>> 
>>> 

Mime
View raw message