So far, we can formally name the first version incubator-0.9.0 to indicate the incubator status as well, and use subversion like rc1, rc2, etc, before moving the artifacts to the final release SVN URL.
For incubator-0.9.0-rc1, the package of source code openwhisk in the dev SVN URL is named after openwhisk-apigateway-incubator-0.9.0-sources.tar.gz under the folder of apache-openwhisk-incubator-0.9.0-rc1. Shall we include the name "incubator" as part of the version name? Or it does not sound attractive. Best wishes. Vincent Hou (侯胜博) Advisory Software Engineer, OpenWhisk Contributor, Open Technology, IBM Cloud Notes ID: Vincent S Hou/Raleigh/IBM, E-mail: s...@us.ibm.com, Phone: +1(919)254-7182 Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States -----James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com> wrote: ----- To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org From: James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com> Date: 06/20/2018 01:17PM Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk 0.9 makes sense to me. Something to think about it - what would constitute a 1.0 release? Whilst the platform is still evolving rapidly, it has been in production on multiple providers for over 12 months. What things would we like to tick off before reaching this stage? On 20 June 2018 at 17:38, Michele Sciabarra <openwh...@sciabarra.com> wrote: > I agree with 0.9.0 > > -- > Michele Sciabarra > openwh...@sciabarra.com > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:37 PM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > I agree with 0.9.0. > > > > -- > > Michele Sciabarra > > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski <mrutk...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rob > > > > -- Regards, James Thomas
