It's end of June - time to start firming up for release. We have a number of outstanding PRs that need votes/merge. Perhaps we try to get those all in this week and begin code freeze next Monday (7/4)?
I think we'll have to postpone the GLV work with gremlin-python for this release. There's just too much left to do to get that in "right". Are there any other open issues of importance? On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, end of June-ish is best for me as I have few things on my plate the > first half of this month. > > Thanks, > Marko. > > http://markorodriguez.com > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 4:46 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > We didn't really discuss a date for release on this thread. I was > thinking > > that we could start looking at the week of July 4th as the target week > for > > VOTE and nail down a date as we get closer. > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Jason Plurad <plur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I'd think from a TinkerPop branding perspective, it probably helps to > have > >> the name in there. It's Apache TinkerPop, not Apache Gremlin. > >> > >> I just took a quick look on a mirror, and some other Apache projects > >> (Spark, Kafka, HBase, NiFi, Pig, Zookeeper) don't even include apache in > >> their distributables, so maybe we can just do: > >> > >> tinkerpop-gremlin-console-x.y.z.zip > >> tinkerpop-gremlin-server-x.y.z.zip > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:03 AM Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> jason i think that was a suggestion to conform more to standard apache > >>> releases from someone in incubator. if it was mandatory we would have > >>> burned for that too many times to count at this point. i'm good to > change > >>> it if everyone else is. what do we want them to be? > >>> > >>> apache-tinkerpop-console-x.y.z.zip > >>> apache-tinkerpop-server-x.y.z.zip > >>> > >>> or the full business: > >>> > >>> apache-tinkerpop-gremlin-console-x.y.z.zip > >>> apache-tinkerpop-gremlin-server-x.y.z.zip > >>> > >>> i guess we lost "-incubating" now so the latter doesn't look so bad to > me > >>> anymore. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Marko Rodriguez < > okramma...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Yes, an imminent release is good. There are 2 severe bug fixes in > >> master/ > >>>> (3.2.1) that I would like to get out there. 3.2.0 had lots of internal > >>>> changes to OLAP and I paid the price by incurring bugs. :| > >>>> > >>>>> Somebody had mentioned that our distributables are supposed to be > >> named > >>>>> apache-tinkerpop*.zip instead of apache-gremlin*.zip. Maybe that's > >>>>> something that should be done along with this release. > >>>> > >>>> There is really no such thing as "tinkerpop" besides the source code > >>> which > >>>> is distributed as apache-tinkerpop-*.zip. The two other distributions > >> are > >>>> gremlin-console and gremlin-server and I think we should keep those > >>> naming > >>>> conventions as they are so they reflect what is being distributed. > >> Thus, > >>> I > >>>> think the naming of our artifacts is correct. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Marko. > >>>> > >>>> http://markorodriguez.com > >>>> > >>>> On May 25, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Jason Plurad <plur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Somebody had mentioned that our distributables are supposed to be > >> named > >>>>> apache-tinkerpop*.zip instead of apache-gremlin*.zip. Maybe that's > >>>>> something that should be done along with this release. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- Jason > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Mallette < > >>> spmalle...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> cool, Ted. it would be good to have another hand there. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ted Wilmes <twil...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think a release sounds good. I'd be interested in witnessing the > >>> the > >>>>>>> post-PMC vote release steps so that I might be able to help out on > >> an > >>>>>>> upcoming release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Ted > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Marvin Froeder <velo...@gmail.com > >>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your are right, for some reason I though it was on the artifactId > >> as > >>>>>> well > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Stephen Mallette < > >>>>>> spmalle...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to relocate anything. The "-incubating" is > >>> just > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> the version name, so we will just remove it for future releases. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Musso < > >>>>>>> jbmu...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I think this is a good idea. This could make these releases look > >>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>> "stable": I've often felt that the -incubating suffix somehow > >> made > >>>>>>>>>> releases look "alpha-ish" / "beta-ish", even though they were > >> not. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Naming aside, bug fixes never hurt. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Mallette < > >>>>>>>> spmalle...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> We've seen a lot of good fixes/optimizations to 3.1.3 and 3.2.1 > >>>>>>> and I > >>>>>>>>>>> wonder if we shouldn't exercise our new found TLP powers to do > >> a > >>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>> and get rid of the "-incubating" at the end of our "current" > >>>>>>>>>> distributions > >>>>>>>>>>> and artifacts. thoughts? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
