+1 as well for 2.0.0 On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:58 AM James Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 on going with 2.0.0 and moving forward with the release. > > On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 12:57, Carlos Santana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > - Carlos Santana > > @csantanapr > > > > > On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David P Grove <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As part of the unified release, we will be doing the first Apache > release > > > of the OpenWhisk event providers (openwhisk-package-alarms, > > > openwhisk-package-cloudant, openwhisk-package-kafka). > > > > > > I've taken a look at the pending PRs, and I think only the ones I just > > > submitted to add DISCLAIMER.txt, etc. are release blocking. Please > > comment > > > if you disagree (or want to get in any other changes before a release). > > > > > > These components all have had non-Apache releases in the past, and thus > > > have a history of version numbering that we need to not confuse. > > > > > > If we want to stick with the minimal increment under semvar, the > initial > > > Apache releases would be numbered: > > > alarms: 1.12.5 > > > cloudant: 1.9.4 > > > kafka: 1.4.22 > > > > > > We could also decide to do a "major" bump to allow a clean Apache vs. > > > non-Apache break in the version numbers. In other words, we would make > > > this the 2.0.0 release of all three event provider modules. > > > > > > My strong inclination is to go with 2.0.0, but I would like to hear > > > thoughts from others. Assuming there are no technical blockers, I > would > > > like to initiate a formal release process for these three components > > early > > > next week. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > --dave > > > > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas >
