Andrew, good question! With my Apache Brooklyn hat on, I can tell you that there is not a real friction, it is just easier for Brooklyn to release the next version based on jclouds 1.9.x. In particular, Brooklyn is using an old version of sshj (0.8.1) which is still the one used at 1.9.x, which will require some work to adapt to.
I hope this is a quite unique use-case which is not a problem for others too! Best, Andrea On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: > Certainly not opposed to releasing 1.9.3, but what blocks users from > upgrading to 2.0.0? It would be good to understand if we can mitigate > any friction. > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:06:17AM +0100, Andrea Turli wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Now that jclouds 2.0.0 is out, I think we could consider releasing > jclouds > > 1.9.3 this week. > > > > I encourage everyone to run the live tests from 1.9.x for your favorite > > providers and share the results and open PR with last minute fixes for > the > > live tests that are failing, potentially on master branch as well. > > All major providers should be working as expected though, and I hope we > can > > release by the end of this week. > > > > If you have something to discuss regarding the release, please shout! > > > > Thanks, > > Andrea > > -- > Andrew Gaul > http://gaul.org/ >
