+1 for 0.10. Also a patch releases for 0.9 should be 0.9.1, 0.9.2, ... IMO.
Thanks, Danushka On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Marlon Pierce <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Checking the semantic versioning site (semver.org) again, the increment > 0.10 is preferred. Since we want to have time-driven (rather than > feature-driven) releases, we will hit this again every 10 patch releases. > We don't want a future patch release to be 1.1.91--it should be 1.1.10. > > So I'm +1 for 0.10. > > > Marlon > > > > On 9/30/13 12:19 PM, Shameera Rathnayaka wrote: > > Hi Marlon, > > > > I would like to add my thought on versionning here, Please see my comment > > inline. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Marlon Pierce > > <[email protected]><[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> > > 0.91 is a real number and it indicates also our intention to release 1.0 > > in the near future. As for GSOC contributions, I would favor having the > > GSOC participants take the lead on any integration, testing, etc with the > > trunk. > > > > > > > According to the versionning strategy 0.91 should be a patch release > of 0.9 > > > release. Therefore it is kind of misleading IMO. So i am +1 for 0.10 > > > instead of 0.91. > > > > > Thanks, > > > Shameera. > > > > > > > > Marlon > > > > > > On 9/30/13 11:04 AM, Amila Jayasekara wrote: > > >>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Marlon Pierce > > >>> <[email protected]><[email protected]> > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>> I'd be concerned about the quality of production testing for > releasese > > >>> if we just include an embedded server. I think Rave hit this > > >>> problem--everyone tested the simplified version packaged for the > > >>> release, but there were a lot bugs and other problems that appeared > when > > >>> trying to use it in a more realistic deployment. > > >>> > > >>> I think it is better to come up with a packaging strategy that is > simple > > >>> enough for testing but also reasonably realistic. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> +1. I am also negative to only release server distribution. Most of > the > > >>>> real deployment scenarios use a separate web server to deploy > Airavata. > > >>>> Further certain functionalities cannot be tested at stand alone > > version. > > >>>> (E.g :- credential store). Therefore we should keep the war > > distribution. > > >>> > > >>>> Anyhow there is a blocking issue [1] for the release related to > > >>>> distribution size. So we must find a solution for this. (Best thing > is > > to > > >>>> unify war distributions and get rid of duplicate jars) > > >>> > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-922 > > >>> > > >>>> Saminda had been making changes to REST API to incorporate workflow > > >>>> execution. Are we planning to make that change available in this > > release ? > > >>>> If so we can get rid of some of SOAP based services. (If this is > taking > > >>>> place we can unify wars also). Saminda please give feedback on this. > > >>> > > >>>> Also what about code we inherit from GSOC project ? Are we planning > to > > >>>> incorporate them to release ? > > >>> > > >>>> Further for the upcoming release it will be better if we do not > include > > >>>> many features. Because there are couple of lingering Jira tickets > > which we > > >>>> have been postponing. Its better to fix some of those in hackathon > mode > > >>>> before the release. > > >>> > > >>>> @Marlon : Any particular reason why you prefer 0.91 rather than > 0.10 ? > > >>>> (0.10 is what we have assigned right now) > > >>> > > >>>> Thanks > > >>>> Thejaka Amila > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Marlon > > >>> > > >>> On 9/30/13 10:30 AM, Raminder Singh wrote: > > >>>>>> Problem is not releasing both tar and zip. Problem is size of the > war > > >>> distribution file which contain > > >>> 2 war files (airavata-server.war and airavata-registry.war). Both the > > >>> war files have lib jars and increase its size more than 100MB. Apache > > >>> limit of 100MB is per file. I think we should only release tar and > zip > > >>> with embedded server to get started. Creating and deploying of WARs > can > > >>> be documented for production users. WDYT? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>> Raminder > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva > > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > <[email protected]><[email protected]> > > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I've noticed you are releasing both a tar and a zip for all the > > >>> distribution artifacts. I've seen lot of people only releasing a zip > or > > >>> a tar and not both. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>> Supun.. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Saminda Wijeratne > > >>> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > >>> <[email protected]><[email protected]>wrote: > > >>>>>>> reducing the release footprint should also be a priority IMO. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Raminder Singh > > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > <[email protected]><[email protected]> > > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Airavata 0.9 is released now and Marlon mentioned a timeline for > 1.0 > > >>> is Mid Nov. How do we want to handle next release? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Some of the features required for the projects i work with are: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> GSISSH Provider > > >>>>>>> Async execution of Applications and implement your own monitor. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Lets discuss a timeline and plan for next release and as well as > for > > >>> 1.0. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>> Raminder > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Marlon Pierce > > >>>>>>> <[email protected]><[email protected]> > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi all-- > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Airavata 0.9 is pending, we also would like to have 1.0 in time > for > > >>>>>>>> Supercomputing 2013 (November 15th), and we have been trying to > get > > >>> down > > >>>>>>>> to ~6 week releases. We have 9 weeks until SC13. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I suggest we do the following: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> * Get 0.9 out over the next couple of days. There are no > blocking > > >>> issues. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> * Define 0.91 or 0.10 release next week and target completion > in 4 > > for > > >>>>>>>> ~October 11th. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> * Define and complete 1.0 release for November 15th. The > primary > > goal > > >>>>>>>> for 1.0 is to have the API stable. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Marlon > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> Supun Kamburugamuva > > >>>>>>> Member, Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org > > >>>>>>> E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +1 812 369 6762 > > >>>>>>> Blog: http://supunk.blogspot.com > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSSbA+AAoJEOEgD2XReDo5TAkIAM50ojm//tzKgIFpzgYdLQTD > aRX8iuLpqL6jfXQmRtIW4jpjRK3xHhSkkCGqbK+XsYxbeyM0QHK2myyGKIGnhDfJ > LQeOsFP6PbEN8lrUg2PPHezsqd7jEtUJ7ElJj7nAZvO7vIWXv/s6j9S8L3XCBgFe > 7tbi0fki5SP76B95sdbOfD+aP++1z8vlciDWDfA1arjeZNqTwIv1feSZZqb5+Iof > AAWCPMQ0sB+Fhj2yJ0++DWkX/ADeCQ67zevLVfymDW33WGYdxB9jf5OyTxeH/T4Y > 013dRi8bX4nUQOMeKrL4WEUZ8Ap3xhRriqnCLozc8bqsHIAVGk9a4AR2PqlHfdg= > =YETR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
