openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActionLoop 1.0.2 with versioning and support for "more"...
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2019 22:04:24 GMT
I like the idea of using the major digit like a Dave suggested actionloop-v2:tag it matches
the other runtimes like nodejs-v8:tag and nodejs-v10:tag 



- Carlos Santana
@csantanapr

> On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:14 PM, Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com> wrote:
> 
> The reason is to distinguish when there are significant changes. The runtime is now built
statically but the old one was not so if you want to use in an alpine images you have to use
this version. I do not plan to change the name all the time only when there are significant
changes, and should be rare. Using a v2 is fine for me.
> -- 
> Michele Sciabarra
> michele@sciabarra.com
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original message -----
> From: David P Grove <groved@us.ibm.com>
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ActionLoop 1.0.2 with versioning and support for "more"...
> Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 8:18 PM
> 
> "Michele Sciabarra" <michele@sciabarra.com> wrote on 02/27/2019 02:04:19
> PM:
>> 
>> First and before all, I changed the name to actionloop-v1.0.2 so any
>> build depending on it can retrieve the right version... (more
>> version, if there is any potentially breaking change, will use a
>> different name).
>> 
> 
> I understand the desire to change the name. I don't like embedding a full
> semantic version into the image name (as opposed to the image tag).
> Perhaps actionloop-v2 is an acceptable compromise?
> 
> We should be doing proper Apache releases of our runtimes and getting the
> semvar into the image tags, not the image names.
> 
> --dave
> 

Mime
View raw message