@Richard - It was my plan to be RM but #fail. Could you? (My attempts seem like they've fried my GPU about 3 hours ago. Maven and Mavericks are definitely not friends. To be fair it looks like this is a known problem with the 2012 MBPr's.)
I've made the branches, dunno how far it got uploading builds. @Hadrian- That would be helpful! Best Alex On 1 September 2015 at 21:46, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > We also need to make sure we incorporate all the feedback from the > incubator vote on the previous release. I will go through it again this > evening. > > Hadrian > > > On 09/01/2015 03:53 PM, Richard Downer wrote: > >> 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. >>> >> -- 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.
