There are a few open PRs that have been active or merged in the last few weeks. I'm going to push out all the other unfinished 1.1.0 milestone [1] PRs to the 1.1.1 milestone [2]. If anyone is unhappy about any of the PRs that are being dropped from 1.1.0, can you get in touch in the next few days? I'm hoping to do an RC for 1.1.0 around Thursday 29th.
[1] https://github.com/apache/pekko/milestone/7 [2] https://github.com/apache/pekko/milestone/10 On 2024/08/14 17:07:54 PJ Fanning wrote: > I'm happy enough to press on with a release candidate around the end of the > month or early next month. > There are a few items open in the milestone but I think they can be delayed > to 1.1.1. I have opened a new milestone for 1.1.1 [1]. > There are a couple of the open issues/PRs in 1.1.0 that seem to be getting > some attention. I'm happy to wait a week and anything that is not progressing > inside that week, I think we should move those to 1.1.1. > Some of the open issues/PRs may need new API methods but I think we can add > some new methods in 1.1.1 as long as we don't damage binary compatibility > with 1.1.0. > Is this approach ok for everyone? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pekko/milestones > > On 2024/08/08 13:31:43 kerr wrote: > > I expect we get a 1.1.0 final release before September, wdyt. > > > > for the features, I think we can delay things if them miss the release > > train. > > > > I'm a little busy at work right now, and my wife just visit me in Hangzhou > > so I will not have time this and the next weekend :( > > 何品 > > > > > > Arnout Engelen <enge...@apache.org> 于2024年8月8日周四 18:48写道： > > > > > I think a 1.1.0 release would be great! > > > > > > I'm not sure we ever discussed what it means for an issue or PR to be > > > added > > > to a milestone 'X' - does it mean "it is a requirement for version X", "we > > > would like it to be in X but don't hold up the release for it", or merely > > > "this will not make it into version prior to X"? > > > > > > I think we should ideally only have "requirement for version X" tasks if > > > we > > > know they cannot be added later without breaking binary compatibility, or > > > when they're meant to solve regressions compared to the previous version. > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Arnout > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:46 AM PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm wondering if we should try to focus on getting a 1.1.0 release out. > > > > It's about a year since the 1.0.0 release. > > > > We have 1.1.0-M1 out [1] and there is a GitHub milestone [2] tracking > > > > some further changes. > > > > I would favour skipping an M2 release as I don't think anything > > > > currently merged or awaiting merge causes major concerns. > > > > What do people think? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > PJ > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://pekko.apache.org/docs/pekko/1.1/release-notes/releases-1.1.html > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/pekko/milestone/7 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Arnout Engelen > > > ASF Security Response > > > Apache Pekko PMC member, ASF Member > > > NixOS Committer > > > Independent Open Source consultant > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org
