+1 for 0.8.0. I don't see a lot of value in a milestone release at this
point.
Alex, re: package split, I don't think so, but even if we discover
something it shouldn't be a blocker.
Hadrian
On 08/31/2015 12:55 PM, Aled Sage wrote:
+1
We should aim for a 0.8.0 release candidate soon as well.
What else do we need after an M1 before we can have 0.8.0? Should we
just go straight for 0.8.0?!
Aled
On 31/08/2015 17:31, Alex Heneveld wrote:
Hi folks,
Now that the package rename is pretty much done, I'd like to get an
080-M1 out, maybe kick this off tomorrow?
This will be nice for users who have been disrupted by the rename!!
With #873 ready for review we can even offer backwards compatibility
for persisted state, although any user java code will have to have
imports optimized (or if you prefer, run a `sed -i` over the code
based on `deserializedClassRenames.properties` -- we should document
this in the release notes -- any volunteers for that?).
We'll go through the existing PR's and finish the scan of plans/docs
(as discussed at #873), but if there are any other pieces of work let
us know.
@Hadrian -- are there more renames to come to remove the OSGi split
packages?
Best
Alex
