Hi Alex, Are you up for being RM for this one?
Richard. On 1 September 2015 at 17:03, Alex Heneveld <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all- > > +1 to no need for milestones. There are quite a few goodies in any case > beyond the package refactoring which is huge! See them here: > > https://brooklyn.incubator.apache.org/v/0.8.0-SNAPSHOT/misc/release-notes.html > > [still uploading so you may have to wait a bit] > > I've compiled new release notes and uploaded updated snapshot docs. This > includes updated catalog items and javadocs. I've also made the downloads > and versions more prominent (and fixed broken links), completed persistence > compatibility for the package refactoring (#873), and merged a few other > PR's outstanding. > > The release notes include a MIGRATION GUIDE, linked from above. > > If there are any last comments, or other NEW FEATURES deserve a mention, > speak up. > > Otherwise roll on 0.8.0-RC1 ! > > Best > Alex > > > > On 01/09/2015 08:54, Richard Downer wrote: >> >> I'd be in favour of 0.8.0. It'd be great to iterate much faster on >> releases. I assume under semantic versioning that we don't have to >> stop when we reach 0.9 :-) >> >> Richard. >> >> On 31 August 2015 at 18:56, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > > > -- > Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230. > Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP > > This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If > the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return > the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from > your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft > Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this > message after it was sent. > > Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of > viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward > transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not > adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by > Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should carry > out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
