"Vincent S Hou" <[email protected]> wrote on 08/27/2018 12:39:01 PM: > > For convenience of release management in Apache. > * We can send one or two vote email(s) instead of 6.
I realize that it will make the initial release more convenient. I don't think this is a compelling reason however. > * The download page of openwhisk.org can allocate one section to > offer the download links of runtimes. I don't think this is a good pattern. I predict we will be releasing runtimes in individual cadences, driven by changes in the upstream base language runtime, CVEs that need to be fixed via a new runtime release, etc. So I think the download for the runtime needs to be organized by runtime, then by version within each runtime, not by openwhisk version. --dave > > > > 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: [email protected], > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States > > -----Rodric Rabbah <[email protected]> wrote: ----- > To: [email protected] > From: Rodric Rabbah <[email protected]> > Date: 08/27/2018 11:45AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION]: Proposing to use 1.12.0 as the version > for all runtimes for the first-time release under Apache > > Why do they all need to start from the same version? > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Vincent S Hou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi OpenWhiskers, > > > > We are on our way to release OpenWhisk runtimes under Apache for the first > > time. As you may notice or not, each individual runtime repository has > > already used > > its own version numbers as the build tag for quite a while. In order not > > to disrupt the current versioning number and also accommodating the release > > work under Apache, I would like to propose 1.12.0 as the version number for > > the first time we release the six runtimes under Apache, because this > > version number is the minimum > > nominator I find for all the runtimes so far. > > > > We now have following runtimes, which have already released with their > > version numbers: > > docker skeleton v1.3.3 > > python2 v1.0.3 > > python3 v.1.0.3 > > node8 v1.12.0 > > node6 v1.12.0 > > php7.2 v1.0.2 > > swift4.1 v1.0.8 > > java8 v1.1.2 > > > > I think 1.12.0 can match them all, and then use it as a common ground to > > move on with further version numbers. I would like to hear your comments. > > If no objection is heard, I will move on with 1.12.0 for the runtimes to > > be released under Apache for the first time. > > > > Best wishes, > > Vincent Hou > > > > > > >
