openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David P Grove" <gro...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Upcoming OpenWhisk releases
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:28:15 GMT


Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote on 03/15/2018 08:24:19 AM:
>
> 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?


Seems to me that 0.x.y would be attractive if we want to "dry run" an
official release sooner than we can finalize the 3 aspects Rodric mentioned
above.

>
> -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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message