openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: time for next OpenWhisk release wave?
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2019 22:16:15 GMT
I agree with the plan Rodric

Dave,
  What are your thinking for release notes? do you want to create the first
one for one of the runtimes? I can create the other ones.

Is it just a matter of creating a branch "1.13.0-incubating" on the repo
and adding a RELEASE.md file?

-- Carlos


On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:48 PM Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote:

> Following up on this after watching today's community call replay. Dave
> made the point that the big chunk of work toward this release is writing
> release notes and deciding which of the components is ready. Several people
> volunteered (Carlos, Matt) and I’m volunteering myself as well.
>
> I’d suggest we create an issue for each repo that we will include in the
> release to deliver the release notes to start.
>
> Dave also pointed out that there’s a few staging phases to coordinate
> which could take us about 3 weeks (largely because of the voting and 72hr
> waiting periods).
>
> Dave: what else did I miss?
>
> -r
>
> > On Jan 7, 2019, at 4:55 PM, David P Grove <groved@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to see us push out a consolidated next release in the near
> > future (by end of January?).  I'd also like to see us attempt to
> establish
> > a regular cadence of such consolidated releases (perhaps quarterly?).
> >
> > We would start this release from the leaves of our dependency tree and
> work
> > up:
> >       1) release all action runtimes that have changed since their last
> > Apache release.
> >       2) release cli tooling
> >       3) release event providers
> >       4) release core system (with pinned versions of runtimes, cli, and
> > providers)
> >       5) release packaging projects (kube-deploy, dev-tools, etc.) with
> > pinned versions of entire system.
> >
> > I would also like to propose that although we keep semantic versioning of
> > the sub-packages (openwhisk-runtime-java-x.y.z, openwhisk-cli-a.b.c,
> etc),
> > that we adopt a date-based version number for the consolidate
> uber-release
> > (eg OpenWhisk 19.01 if we actually manage to get this all out in
> January).
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > --dave
>
>

-- 
Carlos Santana
<csantana23@gmail.com>

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