[GitHub] [guacamole-website] necouchman merged pull request #77: Mark the 1.0.0 release as archived.

[GitBox]

necouchman merged pull request #77: Mark the 1.0.0 release as archived.
URL: https://github.com/apache/guacamole-website/pull/77
 
 
   


This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

[GitHub] [guacamole-website] mike-jumper opened a new pull request #77: Mark the 1.0.0 release as archived.

[GitBox]

mike-jumper opened a new pull request #77: Mark the 1.0.0 release as archived.
URL: https://github.com/apache/guacamole-website/pull/77
 
 
   This change marks the 1.0.0 release as archived, linking to the release 
artifacts only via `archive.apache.org`. Setting the `archived` flag 
additionally produces a notice at the top of the release notes linking to the 
latest release (1.1.0).


This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Mike Jumper]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:35 AM Nick Couchman  wrote:

> I'm about half done (ish). Some is written while the rest is
> > outlined/stubbed. Here's what I have so far:
> >
> > https://github.com/mike-jumper/guacamole-website/tree/draft-1.0.0-RC1
> >
> > If you'd like to assist, please do. I can pull commits off your fork,
> etc.
> > so that the ultimate pull request has both of our changes.
> >
> >
> I've taken a stab at writing some of this, for at least the items I was
> familiar enough with to begin
> documenting.  Here is my branch:
>
> https://github.com/necouchman/guacamole-website/tree/draft-1.0.0-RC1
>
> I'll continue to work it and you can use what you like and discard what you
> don't.  I wasn't entirely sure how much detail should be included in
> particular sections of changes, so I erred on the verbose side.
>

Thanks, Nick!

- Mike

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

I'm about half done (ish). Some is written while the rest is
> outlined/stubbed. Here's what I have so far:
>
> https://github.com/mike-jumper/guacamole-website/tree/draft-1.0.0-RC1
>
> If you'd like to assist, please do. I can pull commits off your fork, etc.
> so that the ultimate pull request has both of our changes.
>
>
I've taken a stab at writing some of this, for at least the items I was
familiar enough with to begin
documenting.  Here is my branch:

https://github.com/necouchman/guacamole-website/tree/draft-1.0.0-RC1

I'll continue to work it and you can use what you like and discard what you
don't.  I wasn't entirely sure how much detail should be included in
particular sections of changes, so I erred on the verbose side.

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Hadil Sabbagh]

Unsubscibe.

> On Dec 31, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Mike Jumper  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 8:59 AM Nick Couchman 
> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Pretty good, I'd say. I'll type up draft release notes, etc.
>>> 
>>> - Mike
>>> 
>> 
>> Mike,
>> Any progress on the release notes?  I started working on some myself, if
>> you haven't started on them I can finish up a cut and send those over?
>> 
>> 
> I'm about half done (ish). Some is written while the rest is
> outlined/stubbed. Here's what I have so far:
> 
> https://github.com/mike-jumper/guacamole-website/tree/draft-1.0.0-RC1
> 
> If you'd like to assist, please do. I can pull commits off your fork, etc.
> so that the ultimate pull request has both of our changes.
> 
> - Mike

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Mike Jumper]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 8:59 AM Nick Couchman 
wrote:

> >
> >
> > Pretty good, I'd say. I'll type up draft release notes, etc.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
>
> Mike,
> Any progress on the release notes?  I started working on some myself, if
> you haven't started on them I can finish up a cut and send those over?
>
>
I'm about half done (ish). Some is written while the rest is
outlined/stubbed. Here's what I have so far:

https://github.com/mike-jumper/guacamole-website/tree/draft-1.0.0-RC1

If you'd like to assist, please do. I can pull commits off your fork, etc.
so that the ultimate pull request has both of our changes.

- Mike

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:59 AM Nick Couchman 
wrote:

>
>> Pretty good, I'd say. I'll type up draft release notes, etc.
>>
>> - Mike
>>
>
> Mike,
> Any progress on the release notes?  I started working on some myself, if
> you haven't started on them I can finish up a cut and send those over?
>
> Also, I have this one outstanding issue with the RADIUS module and
> challenge authentication that I'm still tracking down.  I don't think it
> needs to block the 1.0.0 release - it could be classified as a "known
> issue" - but I think I've figured out what's going on.  As a reminder, the
> situation occurs when the RADIUS module is stacked with other modules (e.g.
> JDBC), when those other modules authenticate before the RADIUS module, and
> when the RADIUS module requests additional credentials.  When this happens,
> instead of the web app requesting the additional credentials, it just fails
> the authentication.
>
> Based on the debugging I've done, it does not look like the issue is in
> the RADIUS module itself - it looks like maybe the errors thrown by the
> individual modules get stacked or queued, and the first one in the queue is
> the one that the REST API pushes to the web app.  So, it goes something
> like this:
> - User attempts to log in with RADIUS credentials
> - JDBC module fails the authentication, throwing an Invalid Credentials
> Exception.
> - Control is passed to the RADIUS module.
> - RADIUS module needs additional credentials, throwing an Insufficient
> Credentials Exception with the additional required credentials.
> - REST API sends Invalid Credentials to the web app, and authentication
> fails completely.
>
> I've done some debugging and added some logging to confirm that the RADIUS
> module is behaving as expected, but that the 403 returned by the api/tokens
> endpoint in the above scenario only contains the Invalid Credentials
> Exception and not the Insufficient Credentials Exception.
>
> -Nick
>

Figured out what was going on, here, and opened a new JIRA issue (against
the 1.0.0 release) and a pull request that should take care of this issue.

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

>
>
> Pretty good, I'd say. I'll type up draft release notes, etc.
>
> - Mike
>

Mike,
Any progress on the release notes?  I started working on some myself, if
you haven't started on them I can finish up a cut and send those over?

Also, I have this one outstanding issue with the RADIUS module and
challenge authentication that I'm still tracking down.  I don't think it
needs to block the 1.0.0 release - it could be classified as a "known
issue" - but I think I've figured out what's going on.  As a reminder, the
situation occurs when the RADIUS module is stacked with other modules (e.g.
JDBC), when those other modules authenticate before the RADIUS module, and
when the RADIUS module requests additional credentials.  When this happens,
instead of the web app requesting the additional credentials, it just fails
the authentication.

Based on the debugging I've done, it does not look like the issue is in the
RADIUS module itself - it looks like maybe the errors thrown by the
individual modules get stacked or queued, and the first one in the queue is
the one that the REST API pushes to the web app.  So, it goes something
like this:
- User attempts to log in with RADIUS credentials
- JDBC module fails the authentication, throwing an Invalid Credentials
Exception.
- Control is passed to the RADIUS module.
- RADIUS module needs additional credentials, throwing an Insufficient
Credentials Exception with the additional required credentials.
- REST API sends Invalid Credentials to the web app, and authentication
fails completely.

I've done some debugging and added some logging to confirm that the RADIUS
module is behaving as expected, but that the 403 returned by the api/tokens
endpoint in the above scenario only contains the Invalid Credentials
Exception and not the Insufficient Credentials Exception.

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Mike Jumper]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 07:13 Nick Couchman  On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:18 PM Nick Couchman  wrote:
>
> >
> >>> Very nice.  I do need to try to investigate the issue reported with the
> >> RADIUS extension this week - going to try to do some testing on that
> this
> >> weekend and see if there's anything that needs to be corrected there
> prior
> >> to the release.
> >>
> >>
> > Just FYI - I'm chasing a couple of regressions in the 1.0.0 release - one
> > having to do with incompatible slf4j dependencies being loaded into
> various
> > modules (PR created for this) and one for the CAS module not redirecting
> > properly (which I'm banging my head trying to figure out).
> >
> >
> Okay, I think we got those 2-3 bugs squashed.  How are we feeling about
> RC1?
>

Pretty good, I'd say. I'll type up draft release notes, etc.

- Mike

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:18 PM Nick Couchman  wrote:

>
>>> Very nice.  I do need to try to investigate the issue reported with the
>> RADIUS extension this week - going to try to do some testing on that this
>> weekend and see if there's anything that needs to be corrected there prior
>> to the release.
>>
>>
> Just FYI - I'm chasing a couple of regressions in the 1.0.0 release - one
> having to do with incompatible slf4j dependencies being loaded into various
> modules (PR created for this) and one for the CAS module not redirecting
> properly (which I'm banging my head trying to figure out).
>
>
Okay, I think we got those 2-3 bugs squashed.  How are we feeling about RC1?

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

>
>
>> Very nice.  I do need to try to investigate the issue reported with the
> RADIUS extension this week - going to try to do some testing on that this
> weekend and see if there's anything that needs to be corrected there prior
> to the release.
>
>
Just FYI - I'm chasing a couple of regressions in the 1.0.0 release - one
having to do with incompatible slf4j dependencies being loaded into various
modules (PR created for this) and one for the CAS module not redirecting
properly (which I'm banging my head trying to figure out).

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:21 AM Mike Jumper  wrote:

> Yep. I'm going to do a quick once-over to make sure nothing is glaring but
> yes. Next step is to draft the release notes, upload docs and artifacts,
> and call a vote on the RC.
>
>
Very nice.  I do need to try to investigate the issue reported with the
RADIUS extension this week - going to try to do some testing on that this
weekend and see if there's anything that needs to be corrected there prior
to the release.

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Mike Jumper]

Yep. I'm going to do a quick once-over to make sure nothing is glaring but
yes. Next step is to draft the release notes, upload docs and artifacts,
and call a vote on the RC.

- Mike


On Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 03:58 Nick Couchman  So, are we ready to cut 1.0.0-RC1?
>
> -Nick
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 15:27 Mike Jumper 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Mike Jumper 
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Nick Couchman 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> No objections, so we'll call this good.  We have 75 issues tagged for
> > >>>> 1.0.0, with 12 remaining to be closed out before the release.  A
> > handful of
> > >>>> these are just waiting on documentation, most of them in code
> review,
> > and
> > >>>> then a couple waiting on PRs to be submitted.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -Nick
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Mike, do you want to create the git branches for the 1.0.0 release,
> or,
> > >> alternatively, point me in the direction of documentation on how to do
> > it?
> > >
> > > Sure - I'll make the branches real quick.
> > >
> >
> > Branches created!
> >
> > It's great that we now have a "resync repositories" button on
> > selfserve.apache.org. No more having to request a resync from Infra
> > each time branches are created/deleted.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
>

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

So, are we ready to cut 1.0.0-RC1?

-Nick

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 15:27 Mike Jumper  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Mike Jumper 
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Nick Couchman  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No objections, so we'll call this good.  We have 75 issues tagged for
> >>>> 1.0.0, with 12 remaining to be closed out before the release.  A
> handful of
> >>>> these are just waiting on documentation, most of them in code review,
> and
> >>>> then a couple waiting on PRs to be submitted.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> -Nick
> >>>
> >>
> >> Mike, do you want to create the git branches for the 1.0.0 release, or,
> >> alternatively, point me in the direction of documentation on how to do
> it?
> >
> > Sure - I'll make the branches real quick.
> >
>
> Branches created!
>
> It's great that we now have a "resync repositories" button on
> selfserve.apache.org. No more having to request a resync from Infra
> each time branches are created/deleted.
>
> - Mike
>

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Mike Jumper]

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Nick Couchman  wrote:
>>
>> No objections, so we'll call this good.  We have 75 issues tagged for
>>> 1.0.0, with 12 remaining to be closed out before the release.  A handful of
>>> these are just waiting on documentation, most of them in code review, and
>>> then a couple waiting on PRs to be submitted.
>>>
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>
> Mike, do you want to create the git branches for the 1.0.0 release, or,
> alternatively, point me in the direction of documentation on how to do it?

Sure - I'll make the branches real quick.

Regarding the docs, you can find the overall release process here:

http://guacamole.apache.org/open-source/#committers

The specific docs are in part 1/4 of the release procedures:

http://guacamole.apache.org/release-procedures-part1/#release-branch

- Mike

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Nick Couchman 
wrote:

> >
>> > Thoughts?  Any we want to eliminate from the list?  Any that should be
>> > added?
>> >
>>
>> I'd like to include GUACAMOLE-567, which is the "detecting and
>> advising of network connectivity issues" feature I mentioned earlier
>> in the thread. I've been sitting on a development branch with the
>> changes for the above, and they should be pretty ready for PR and
>> review, but I've only just now opened the corresponding issue in JIRA:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GUACAMOLE-567
>>
>> Other than that, I'm good with the above scope, and definitely in
>> favor of moving forward with 1.0.0.
>>
>>
> Sounds good.  I've added that one to the 1.0.0 release on JIRA.
>
> Any of the other developers any comments?  Objections or other stuff that
> should be included?
>
>

No objections, so we'll call this good.  We have 75 issues tagged for
1.0.0, with 12 remaining to be closed out before the release.  A handful of
these are just waiting on documentation, most of them in code review, and
then a couple waiting on PRs to be submitted.

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

>
> >
> > Thoughts?  Any we want to eliminate from the list?  Any that should be
> > added?
> >
>
> I'd like to include GUACAMOLE-567, which is the "detecting and
> advising of network connectivity issues" feature I mentioned earlier
> in the thread. I've been sitting on a development branch with the
> changes for the above, and they should be pretty ready for PR and
> review, but I've only just now opened the corresponding issue in JIRA:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GUACAMOLE-567
>
> Other than that, I'm good with the above scope, and definitely in
> favor of moving forward with 1.0.0.
>
>
Sounds good.  I've added that one to the 1.0.0 release on JIRA.

Any of the other developers any comments?  Objections or other stuff that
should be included?

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Mike Jumper]

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Nick Couchman
<nick.e.couch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll recheck open JIRA issues and PRs in a bit, but the above are what
>>> come
>>> to mind.
>>
> Hey, everyone,
> Circling back on this 1.0.0 release, I'm going to propose that we fix the
> release to include the issues currently noted in JIRA:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/GUACAMOLE/versions/12342170
>
> I've added a few more today based on PRs currently open in the
> guacamole-server and guacamole-client repositories and that should be
> simple enough to push through.  I'd suggest focusing on closing out the
> rest of the issues - I know Mike has been working the group support pretty
> hard, and there are a couple other big ones that should be doable to finish
> up.
>
> Thoughts?  Any we want to eliminate from the list?  Any that should be
> added?
>

I'd like to include GUACAMOLE-567, which is the "detecting and
advising of network connectivity issues" feature I mentioned earlier
in the thread. I've been sitting on a development branch with the
changes for the above, and they should be pretty ready for PR and
review, but I've only just now opened the corresponding issue in JIRA:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GUACAMOLE-567

Other than that, I'm good with the above scope, and definitely in
favor of moving forward with 1.0.0.

- Mike

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

>
>
>
>> I'll recheck open JIRA issues and PRs in a bit, but the above are what
>> come
>> to mind.
>>
>>
>
Hey, everyone,
Circling back on this 1.0.0 release, I'm going to propose that we fix the
release to include the issues currently noted in JIRA:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/GUACAMOLE/versions/12342170

I've added a few more today based on PRs currently open in the
guacamole-server and guacamole-client repositories and that should be
simple enough to push through.  I'd suggest focusing on closing out the
rest of the issues - I know Mike has been working the group support pretty
hard, and there are a couple other big ones that should be doable to finish
up.

Thoughts?  Any we want to eliminate from the list?  Any that should be
added?

-Nick

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Mike Jumper]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Nick Couchman  wrote:

> ...
> > > >
> > > From JIRA, the following look like good (potential) candidates to me:
> > >
> > > (?) GUACAMOLE-407: Use Ubuntu for docker images instead of CentOS
> > >
> > >
> > We're running with an Ubuntu base image. We've had some issues with the
> > version of libssh available for CentOS.
> > Can submit a PR with what we work with, it's a fairly straight-foward
> > modification.
>
> I'm not sure how much progress Mike has made with that, but you're
> definitely welcome to submit a PR for it.
>

My progress so far is a set of WIP changes which *may* be complete, but
definitely needs testing:

https://github.com/apache/guacamole-server/compare/master...mike-jumper:docker-ubuntu

- Mike

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 09:40 Or Cohen  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Nick Couchman 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:43 AM, Mike Jumper 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Nick Couchman 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll recheck open JIRA issues and PRs in a bit, but the above are what
> > come
> > > to mind.
> > >
> > >
> > From JIRA, the following look like good (potential) candidates to me:
> >
> > (?) GUACAMOLE-407: Use Ubuntu for docker images instead of CentOS
> >
> >
> We're running with an Ubuntu base image. We've had some issues with the
> version of libssh available for CentOS.
> Can submit a PR with what we work with, it's a fairly straight-foward
> modification.


I'm not sure how much progress Mike has made with that, but you're
definitely welcome to submit a PR for it.

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Or Cohen]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Nick Couchman 
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:43 AM, Mike Jumper 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Nick Couchman  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'll recheck open JIRA issues and PRs in a bit, but the above are what
> come
> > to mind.
> >
> >
> From JIRA, the following look like good (potential) candidates to me:
>
> (?) GUACAMOLE-407: Use Ubuntu for docker images instead of CentOS
>
>
We're running with an Ubuntu base image. We've had some issues with the
version of libssh available for CentOS.
Can submit a PR with what we work with, it's a fairly straight-foward
modification.

Re: 1.0.0 Release?

[Nick Couchman]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:43 AM, Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org>
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Nick Couchman <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > So, who's interested in inaugurating the newly-proposed release process
> by
> > setting the scope for 1.0.0 so we can release the version?
> >
> >
> I'm definitely in favor of setting scope and beginning the 1.0.0 release
> process. Off the top of my head:
>
> * The recently-reported regression in the handling of the user disable flag
> should definitely be included.
>

Yep, +1 (GUACAMOLE-529)


> * The "quickconnect" extension seems real close to being ready for merge.
> Probably good to include that in scope.
>

+1 (GUACAMOLE-38)


> * The new parameters allowing control of the drive and printer name for RDP
> seem good candidates.
>

+1 (GUACAMOLE-445 and GUACAMOLE-446)


> * I'm in the middle of adding group support, though I don't know how soon I
> can finish this. It'd be a nice addition, but may not be worth delaying the
> release.
>

(GUACAMOLE-220)

Any idea how much more time you think this will take?  It would both be a
nice addition, and I'm guessing a change of this magnitude is going to be
another major release, it might be worth putting it in scope if the changes
aren't too far off.  I can go either way, just worth some discussion.


> * I have some local changes which are aimed at detecting and advising of
> network connectivity issues (displaying a notification warning the user of
> potential issues, rather than forcing them to be confused for 15 seconds
> while they await disconnect) which are simple enough to be worth
> considering.
>

Sounds good to me!


>
> I'll recheck open JIRA issues and PRs in a bit, but the above are what come
> to mind.
>
>
>From PRs, other than already mentioned above, the following seem like they
are close enough to completed to include:
GUACAMOLE-530: Spanish OSK
GUACAMOLE-269: Control terminal backspace behavior
GUACAMOLE-464: Allow environment variables to configure Guacamole -> Just
waiting on documentation
(?) GUACAMOLE-516: Reset OSK pressed keys
(?) GUACAMOLE-103: SAML Authentication Extension -> This could probably be
released later on in a minor or mid update (1.0.1, 1.1.0, etc.), instead,
if we think it needs more time to bake/test before a 1.0.0 release.
(?) GUACAMOLE-300: Add posixGroup to LDAP Group Search -> Assuming we can
get some minor things tweaked, here.
(?) GUACAMOLE-465: Changes to guacenc for new codecs and stdout
(?) GUACAMOLE-470: Allow finer configuration of terminal color scheme

Ones that should probably *not* be included:
GUACAMOLE-234: Move to JLDAP API -> Definitely not ready, yet, as I have to
write support for referral chasing.  Also, this should be something we can
release in a 1.x-type update, and doesn't need to be a major change.
GUACAMOLE-221: Support for Prompts -> Definitely not ready, needs a good
code review and probably a decent amount of work.  Probably something for
the next major release (2.0).
GUACAMOLE-526: Update version of AngularJS used by web client
GUACAMOLE-415: SQLite Support -> Still held up by upstream SQLite JDBC
Driver Issue


>From JIRA, the following look like good (potential) candidates to me:
GUACAMOLE-527: Add support for checking SSH host key -> This should be
simple enough to accomplish prior to 1.0.0 release
GUACAMOLE-296: Bug in audio support -> Need to figure out what's going on
with this build and why it isn't linking correctly in some situations
GUACAMOLE-168: X.org Driver -> How close do you think this is?  Something
that's worth scoping here, or waiting to a later release?
GUACAMOLE-96: 2FA/MFA Support -> Just waiting on documentation
GUACAMOLE-42: Support controlling guacd log level in docker -> Seems like a
relatively simple change
(?) GUACAMOLE-518: Shift/Caps Lock Issues -> Not sure what's involved to
fix this??
(?) GUACAMOLE-152: Tweaks to Zoom Control -> I think I can tackle this and
have it ready for a 1.0.0 release
(?) GUACAMOLE-450: Tomcat version used in Docker -> Not sure what this
would take to get ready for 1.0.0?
(?) GUACAMOLE-353: ASF Headers in Makefile
(?) GUACAMOLE-456: Docker multi-stage builds for guacd
(?) GUACAMOLE-407: Use Ubuntu for docker images instead of CentOS



> Did you have anything in mind?
>
>
Nothing in particular, just feels like we've accomplished quite a bit since
0.9.14, including some pretty major changes.  Also, since we have a few
pretty big items (1 Blocker, 1 Critical, and 13 Major) we have
fixed/implemented, I thought it would probably be good to get a release out
that takes care of those, and inaugurates the new proposed
versioning/release process.  There are 47 JIRA issues marked as completed
for 1.0.0, with two in progress, plus whatever of the above list we decide
to mark for 1.0.0.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/GUACAMOLE/versions/12342170

-Nick