openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module
Date Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:05:22 GMT
Sorry Rodric my second part of my email was intended for Vincent

Vincent you want to do an RC2 and address or continue since you are release
manager I don’t want to impose anything on you.

But if you want to continue I think you have enough votes to close it and
move forward with IPMC.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 5:44 AM Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote:

> I figured out the issue - posted it as a comment on GitHub.
>
> -r
>
> > On Jun 30, 2018, at 1:40 AM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Rodric
> >  I ran it on my mac and think I made sure I unset my OPENWHISK_HOME.
> >
> > I can try again with a clean OS using a fresh Vagrant Ubuntu14 and using
> > the tgz and give it a go,
> >
> > Are you sure is not easier to do an RC2 and fix this issues in the
> artifact?
> >
> > If you want to proceed, then go ahead and close the vote result in dev
> and
> > start the new vote on in incubator list to see what would be the vote
> > results, but take into account you will need to be on top of the findings
> > which would be similar as the found in the dev list.
> >
> > -- Carlos
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:19 PM Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> -r
> >>
> >>> On Jun 29, 2018, at 11:28 AM, Vincent S Hou <shou@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rodric,
> >>>
> >>> I think all the issues can be resolved by updating the instruction of
> >> installation.
> >>>
> >>> I can definitely work on that.
> >>>
> >>> Our vote for main OpenWhisk module is effective. After consolidating
> the
> >> result and fixing the document, we should proceed with the release.
> >>>
> >>> I have tried the local deployment, which turned out to be fine. I have
> >> documented some known issues in the instruction.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes.
> >>> Vincent Hou (侯胜博)
> >>>
> >>> Advisory Software Engineer, OpenWhisk Contributor, Open Technology, IBM
> >> Cloud
> >>>
> >>> Notes ID: Vincent S Hou/Raleigh/IBM, E-mail: shou@us.ibm.com,
> >>> Phone: +1(919)254-7182 <(919)%20254-7182>
> >>> Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United
> >> States
> >>>
> >>> -----Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote: -----
> >>> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> >>> From: Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: 06/29/2018 08:38AM
> >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main
> >> OpenWhisk module
> >>>
> >>> I am breaking this out into a DISCUSS thread so not to pollute the
> vote.
> >> In
> >>> completing this checking list:
> >>>
> >>> [x] Download links are valid.
> >>> [x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> >>> [x] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current
> >> release.
> >>> [x] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
> >>> [x] All files have license headers if necessary. (checked with
> scan-code)
> >>> [x] No compiled archives bundled in source archive (modulo
> >>> gradle-wrapper.jar).
> >>>
> >>> I ran into a few hiccups (some duplicates with Bertrand's) for which I
> >>> opened the following issues:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/207
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/208
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/209 (bug)
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/210
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/211 (bug)
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/212
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/213 (bug,
> >>> blocks deployment)
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/214
> >>>
> >>> Carlos I'm not sure how you deployed successfully and ran hello world.
> >> I'd
> >>> like to know if this is isolated to me. It looks like both Betrand and
> I
> >>> ran into issues with deployment (beyond the doc bug).
> >>>
> >>> -r
> >>>
> >>
>

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