And while we're at it, demobox, whenever you want to start up the 1.6.2-incubating release process works for me - lemme know so I can be online. =)
A. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > Yeah, if the abstractions slip, that's not the end of the world, but if we > *can* get them, I'd really like to. > > A. > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Everett Toews < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I just updated a handful of issues that I'm familiar with for what I >> think will be in 1.7.0. I then did the following search so see what was >> planned to be included in 1.7.0. >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JCLOUDS%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%221.7.0%22%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open >> >> Currently we're sitting at 35 open issues. The 3 abstraction issues are >> doozies but other than those I think it's doable. >> >> Everett >> >> >> On Jul 2, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: >> >> > So, resurrecting this thread - we seem to have a general consensus on a >> 6 >> > week or so cadence for maintenance releases, but no one's really added >> > anything more to the 1.7 roadmap, either on the wiki or on JIRA, so far >> as >> > I can see. I'd really like to define the scope within the next few >> weeks, >> > so that we can figure out the timeframe from there. >> > >> > A. >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Andrew Phillips < >> [email protected]>wrote: >> > >> >> Version strings: semver looks right for jclouds (SDKs, maven >> packaging), >> >>> however it might make sense to also "unofficially" name feature >> releases >> >>> with a month/year. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Note that the "-incubating" suffix, which is also present for release >> >> versions such as our recent 1.6.1-incubating, is not semver-compliant. >> >> >> >> Not that that's something I think we need to be too concerned about, >> but... >> >> >> >> ap >> >> >> >> >
