Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
Can we also write up the release process in markdown and store in in the repo to help future release managers (unless Vincent wants to do it forever :))? On 20 June 2018 at 20:59, Vincent S Hou wrote: > Give me the honor to the initiative as the first release manager of > OpenWhisk. > The first version is named after "0.9.0-incubating", based on the semantic > version 2.0. > I am preparing the email for VOTE now. I will send out the email by the > end of today. > > > > 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: s...@us.ibm.com, > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United > States > > -"Matt Rutkowski" wrote: - > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > From: "Matt Rutkowski" > Date: 06/20/2018 03:05PM > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > Agree, Vincent should be first Release Manager. Do we have a champagne > bottle somewhere? > > Kind regards, > Matt > > > > From: Carlos Santana > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Date: 06/20/2018 01:36 PM > Subject:Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > > > Vincent, > > If it's not already clear :-), I think should do the honors, and be > release > manager for the first release :-) > I'm out most of the month of July (vacation). But will volunteer to do a > release in August > > Thread to dev list for vote should have the following Subject "[VOTE] > Release Apache OpenWhisk (incubating) version 0.9.0" > And include the details of the location of the RC, and the instructions > for > voting including the deadline of 72 hours. > > Release Candidate 1 should be located in > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/ > > It's a requirement that artifacts need to include the string "incubating" > as part of the version. > Since we are trying to use semantic versioning "incubating" should be at > the end. > > dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz > dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-apigateway-0.9. > 0-incubating.tar.gz > dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-cli-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz > ... > > We should remove "incubator", and put "incubating" at the end. > Also I would remove "sources" from the name. Only sources are distributed > on apache servers. > After graduation, we stop using "-incubating" > > -cs > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:39 PM Vincent S Hou wrote: > > > So far, we can formally name the first version incubator-0.9.0 to > indicate > > the incubator status as well, and use subversion like rc1, rc2, etc, > before > > moving the artifacts to the final release SVN URL. > > > > For incubator-0.9.0-rc1, the package of source code openwhisk in the dev > > SVN URL is named after > openwhisk-apigateway-incubator-0.9.0-sources.tar.gz > > under the folder of apache-openwhisk-incubator-0.9.0-rc1. > > > > Shall we include the name "incubator" as part of the version name? Or it > > does not sound attractive. > > > > > > 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: s...@us.ibm.com, > > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 <(919)%20254-7182> > > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd > > < > https://maps.google.com/?q=4205+S+Miami+Blvd=gmail=g > > > > (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States > > > > -James Thomas wrote: - > > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > > From: James Thomas > > Date: 06/20/2018 01:17PM > > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > > > 0.9 makes sense to me. > > > > Something to think about it - what would constitute a 1.0 release? > Whilst > > the platform is still evolving rapidly, it has been in production on > > multiple providers for over 12 months. What things would we like to tick > > off before reaching this stage? > > > > On 20 June 2018 at 17:38, Michele Sciabarra > > wrote: > > > > > I agree with 0.9.0 > > > > > > -- > > > Michele Sciabarra > > > openwh...@sciabarra.com > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:37 PM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > > > I agree with 0.9.0. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Michele Sciabarra > > > > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > > > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > James Thomas > > > > > > > > > > -- Regards, James Thomas
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
Agree, Vincent should be first Release Manager. Do we have a champagne bottle somewhere? Kind regards, Matt From: Carlos Santana To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 06/20/2018 01:36 PM Subject:Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk Vincent, If it's not already clear :-), I think should do the honors, and be release manager for the first release :-) I'm out most of the month of July (vacation). But will volunteer to do a release in August Thread to dev list for vote should have the following Subject "[VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk (incubating) version 0.9.0" And include the details of the location of the RC, and the instructions for voting including the deadline of 72 hours. Release Candidate 1 should be located in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/ It's a requirement that artifacts need to include the string "incubating" as part of the version. Since we are trying to use semantic versioning "incubating" should be at the end. dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-apigateway-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-cli-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz ... We should remove "incubator", and put "incubating" at the end. Also I would remove "sources" from the name. Only sources are distributed on apache servers. After graduation, we stop using "-incubating" -cs On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:39 PM Vincent S Hou wrote: > So far, we can formally name the first version incubator-0.9.0 to indicate > the incubator status as well, and use subversion like rc1, rc2, etc, before > moving the artifacts to the final release SVN URL. > > For incubator-0.9.0-rc1, the package of source code openwhisk in the dev > SVN URL is named after openwhisk-apigateway-incubator-0.9.0-sources.tar.gz > under the folder of apache-openwhisk-incubator-0.9.0-rc1. > > Shall we include the name "incubator" as part of the version name? Or it > does not sound attractive. > > > 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: s...@us.ibm.com, > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 <(919)%20254-7182> > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd > < https://maps.google.com/?q=4205+S+Miami+Blvd=gmail=g > > (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States > > -James Thomas wrote: - > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > From: James Thomas > Date: 06/20/2018 01:17PM > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > 0.9 makes sense to me. > > Something to think about it - what would constitute a 1.0 release? Whilst > the platform is still evolving rapidly, it has been in production on > multiple providers for over 12 months. What things would we like to tick > off before reaching this stage? > > On 20 June 2018 at 17:38, Michele Sciabarra > wrote: > > > I agree with 0.9.0 > > > > -- > > Michele Sciabarra > > openwh...@sciabarra.com > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:37 PM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > > I agree with 0.9.0. > > > > > > -- > > > Michele Sciabarra > > > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas > >
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
I agree with 0.9.0. -- Michele Sciabarra mich...@sciabarra.com On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > Regards, > > Rob >
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
Vincent, If it's not already clear :-), I think should do the honors, and be release manager for the first release :-) I'm out most of the month of July (vacation). But will volunteer to do a release in August Thread to dev list for vote should have the following Subject "[VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk (incubating) version 0.9.0" And include the details of the location of the RC, and the instructions for voting including the deadline of 72 hours. Release Candidate 1 should be located in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/ It's a requirement that artifacts need to include the string "incubating" as part of the version. Since we are trying to use semantic versioning "incubating" should be at the end. dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-apigateway-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz dev/incubator/openwhisk/0.9.0/RC1/openwhisk-cli-0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz ... We should remove "incubator", and put "incubating" at the end. Also I would remove "sources" from the name. Only sources are distributed on apache servers. After graduation, we stop using "-incubating" -cs On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:39 PM Vincent S Hou wrote: > So far, we can formally name the first version incubator-0.9.0 to indicate > the incubator status as well, and use subversion like rc1, rc2, etc, before > moving the artifacts to the final release SVN URL. > > For incubator-0.9.0-rc1, the package of source code openwhisk in the dev > SVN URL is named after openwhisk-apigateway-incubator-0.9.0-sources.tar.gz > under the folder of apache-openwhisk-incubator-0.9.0-rc1. > > Shall we include the name "incubator" as part of the version name? Or it > does not sound attractive. > > > 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: s...@us.ibm.com, > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 <(919)%20254-7182> > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd > <https://maps.google.com/?q=4205+S+Miami+Blvd=gmail=g> > (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States > > -James Thomas wrote: - > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > From: James Thomas > Date: 06/20/2018 01:17PM > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > 0.9 makes sense to me. > > Something to think about it - what would constitute a 1.0 release? Whilst > the platform is still evolving rapidly, it has been in production on > multiple providers for over 12 months. What things would we like to tick > off before reaching this stage? > > On 20 June 2018 at 17:38, Michele Sciabarra > wrote: > > > I agree with 0.9.0 > > > > -- > > Michele Sciabarra > > openwh...@sciabarra.com > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:37 PM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > > I agree with 0.9.0. > > > > > > -- > > > Michele Sciabarra > > > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas > >
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
So far, we can formally name the first version incubator-0.9.0 to indicate the incubator status as well, and use subversion like rc1, rc2, etc, before moving the artifacts to the final release SVN URL. For incubator-0.9.0-rc1, the package of source code openwhisk in the dev SVN URL is named after openwhisk-apigateway-incubator-0.9.0-sources.tar.gz under the folder of apache-openwhisk-incubator-0.9.0-rc1. Shall we include the name "incubator" as part of the version name? Or it does not sound attractive. 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: s...@us.ibm.com, Phone: +1(919)254-7182 Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States -James Thomas wrote: - To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org From: James Thomas Date: 06/20/2018 01:17PM Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk 0.9 makes sense to me. Something to think about it - what would constitute a 1.0 release? Whilst the platform is still evolving rapidly, it has been in production on multiple providers for over 12 months. What things would we like to tick off before reaching this stage? On 20 June 2018 at 17:38, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > I agree with 0.9.0 > > -- > Michele Sciabarra > openwh...@sciabarra.com > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:37 PM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > I agree with 0.9.0. > > > > -- > > Michele Sciabarra > > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rob > > > > -- Regards, James Thomas
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
0.9 makes sense to me. Something to think about it - what would constitute a 1.0 release? Whilst the platform is still evolving rapidly, it has been in production on multiple providers for over 12 months. What things would we like to tick off before reaching this stage? On 20 June 2018 at 17:38, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > I agree with 0.9.0 > > -- > Michele Sciabarra > openwh...@sciabarra.com > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:37 PM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > I agree with 0.9.0. > > > > -- > > Michele Sciabarra > > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rob > > > > -- Regards, James Thomas
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
I agree with 0.9.0 -- Michele Sciabarra openwh...@sciabarra.com On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:37 PM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > I agree with 0.9.0. > > -- > Michele Sciabarra > mich...@sciabarra.com > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Rob Allen wrote: > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > > > > > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > > > > > > 0.9.0 is fine with me. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rob > >
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
On 20 Jun 2018, at 16:24, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > 0.9.0 is fine with me. Regards, Rob
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
I would like to use `0.x.0`, I'm ok with `0.9.0` And practice and polish and streamline/automate the announcements and install instructions (webiste, twitter). I would like to reserve the 1.0.0 for a big splash announcement Also have for release 1.0.0 an easy and clear instructions on the website, where people can go there hit download version x.y.z, follow a simple INSTALL README, that with a single/couple of commands they can build and deploy using only the versions of the artifacts they just downloaded. Here is what I predict, that people from Incubating mailing list including PMC (assuming no experts on OpenWhisk) would try to do the following to provide a +1 vote. Things typically checked when someone votes: 1. incubating in binary and src release $version name artifacts 2. signatures and hashes correct 3. LICENSE is fine 4. NOTICE is OK. 5. no unexpected binary files 6. source files have headers 7. follow top level README and achieve the following 3 steps 8. 1. can build the release $version from source without any error 9. 2. can deploy what I built in previous step 10. 3. can run a hello demo action with the deployment from previous step I +1 moving forward with [VOTE] on dev list I think if we can do the first 6 steps, should be able to get a votes to release But in the future for release 1.0.0 if we don't have all 10 steps in place I will vote -1 -cs On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:25 AM Matt Rutkowski wrote: > Understand that we may not want people to infer too much from 1.0 > especially since we likely need to address formalizing the > versions/signatures of our APIs as well as SPIs. > > I would suggest what I often do in this case and use a nearer to 1.0 > version such as 0.9.0 which is perhaps a compromise (note you can bump the > 'x' in 0.x.0 any number of times you wish) and indicates we are "close" to > a 1.0. > > Can we go with 0.9.0? > > -mr > > > > From: Rob Allen > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Date: 06/20/2018 09:46 AM > Subject:Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > > > > On 20 Jun 2018, at 15:29, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:28 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote: > >> ...I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release... > > > > Big +1 to that, especially as initial releases may fail due to formal > > aspects, unrelated to their technical quality. > > FWiW, I'm also in the <1.0 camp. > > 1.0 is a commitment to backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that promise > can be made quite yet. > > Regards, > > Rob > > > > > >
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
Understand that we may not want people to infer too much from 1.0 especially since we likely need to address formalizing the versions/signatures of our APIs as well as SPIs. I would suggest what I often do in this case and use a nearer to 1.0 version such as 0.9.0 which is perhaps a compromise (note you can bump the 'x' in 0.x.0 any number of times you wish) and indicates we are "close" to a 1.0. Can we go with 0.9.0? -mr From: Rob Allen To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 06/20/2018 09:46 AM Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > On 20 Jun 2018, at 15:29, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:28 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote: >> ...I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release... > > Big +1 to that, especially as initial releases may fail due to formal > aspects, unrelated to their technical quality. FWiW, I'm also in the <1.0 camp. 1.0 is a commitment to backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that promise can be made quite yet. Regards, Rob
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
> On 20 Jun 2018, at 15:29, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:28 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote: >> ...I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release... > > Big +1 to that, especially as initial releases may fail due to formal > aspects, unrelated to their technical quality. FWiW, I'm also in the <1.0 camp. 1.0 is a commitment to backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that promise can be made quite yet. Regards, Rob
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:28 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote: > ...I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release... Big +1 to that, especially as initial releases may fail due to formal aspects, unrelated to their technical quality. -Bertrand
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
Hi, On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:47 PM Vincent S Hou wrote: > ...If you have any questions or concerns, please chime in with your > comments... No questions at this time but I'd like to remind people of the release voting process for Apache Incubator podlings, roughly: -The release candidates are prepared and a [VOTE] happens here. At this point it's good to get votes from all 3 mentors if possible. -If successful, another [VOTE] happens on general@incubator.a.o, as the release needs to be approved by an Apache PMC, a podling PMC is not sufficient. -If successful, the release is promoted under https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/openwhisk/ The technical quality of initial podling releases is not really important, what matters at this "training" stage is getting the formal aspects of the release and release process validated. Of course, if the release is good from a technical point of view it's even better ;-) > ...There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be released... With my incubation mentor hat on I strongly advise starting with just one module, to validate the process first. -Bertrand
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
+1 to Chetan's points. I raised similar points before - even with respect to the API there are some things we would like to change, some of the internal interfaces, and the testing interfaces as well. I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release - I think we are all as contributors really proud of what we've built but 1.0 is special and we should hold it back. For reference, https://kafka.apache.org/downloads -r On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: > > The version name is called incubator-1.0.0 > > Not yet looked into details but wanted to comment on versioning. May > be we keep it somewhat lower like 0.5.0 or 0.8.0. As we are still > evolving the design wrt various extension points and some of the SPI > interfaces are still evolving. With a 1.0 release we would need to > ensure that all of the APIs are stable and also possibly the SPI > interfaces are also somewhat stable. > > A 1.0 version is special :). So would be better to think what we > consider a 1.0 release in more detail in terms of feature set it > supports. > Chetan Mehrotra > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Vincent S Hou wrote: > > Dave, > > > > We will release the artifacts for source code only, so there will not be > tagged docker images. It does not matter what we have tagged the existing > images. > > > > > > 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: s...@us.ibm.com, > > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 > > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United > States > > > > -"David P Grove" wrote: - > > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > > From: "David P Grove" > > Date: 06/20/2018 08:27AM > > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > > > > > > > "Vincent S Hou" wrote on 06/20/2018 06:47:25 AM: > >> > >> We are currently working on the first release of OpenWhisk. The > >> version name is called incubator-1.0.0, and the subversion is > >> rc2(rc1 as a pilot, has been existing for while). > >> > >> There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be released. > >> The PR in OpenWhisk release repo contains all the information of the > >> hash values of all the repositories: https:// > >> urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url? > >> > > u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dopenwhisk- > 2Drelease_pull_190=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx- > > > >> siA1ZOg=Fe4FicGBU_20P2yihxV- > >> apaNSFb6BSj6AlkptSF2gMk=fyO8VqoMt6Yv9Lv7Yf5eUOQgH74eoKPi_3p_WU- > >> hZEw=mONyOT6wjdWl4JJQg685CHlwAU469EtEj_c49PytCnI=. The artifacts > >> will be generated, when this PR is merged. > >> > >> If you have any questions or concerns, please chime in with your > > comments. > >> > > > > This is great!! > > > > I had a procedural question, is part of the release process changing the > > various "latest" tags for docker images (openwhisk/invoker, etc) to > > "incubator-1.0.0" in the ansible/yaml files that specify docker images to > > pull, or is that not needed because this is a source only release and > there > > will not be matching docker images? > > > > --dave > > >
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
> The version name is called incubator-1.0.0 Not yet looked into details but wanted to comment on versioning. May be we keep it somewhat lower like 0.5.0 or 0.8.0. As we are still evolving the design wrt various extension points and some of the SPI interfaces are still evolving. With a 1.0 release we would need to ensure that all of the APIs are stable and also possibly the SPI interfaces are also somewhat stable. A 1.0 version is special :). So would be better to think what we consider a 1.0 release in more detail in terms of feature set it supports. Chetan Mehrotra On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Vincent S Hou wrote: > Dave, > > We will release the artifacts for source code only, so there will not be > tagged docker images. It does not matter what we have tagged the existing > images. > > > 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: s...@us.ibm.com, > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States > > -"David P Grove" wrote: - > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > From: "David P Grove" > Date: 06/20/2018 08:27AM > Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > > > > "Vincent S Hou" wrote on 06/20/2018 06:47:25 AM: >> >> We are currently working on the first release of OpenWhisk. The >> version name is called incubator-1.0.0, and the subversion is >> rc2(rc1 as a pilot, has been existing for while). >> >> There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be released. >> The PR in OpenWhisk release repo contains all the information of the >> hash values of all the repositories: https:// >> urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url? >> > u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dopenwhisk-2Drelease_pull_190=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx- > >> siA1ZOg=Fe4FicGBU_20P2yihxV- >> apaNSFb6BSj6AlkptSF2gMk=fyO8VqoMt6Yv9Lv7Yf5eUOQgH74eoKPi_3p_WU- >> hZEw=mONyOT6wjdWl4JJQg685CHlwAU469EtEj_c49PytCnI=. The artifacts >> will be generated, when this PR is merged. >> >> If you have any questions or concerns, please chime in with your > comments. >> > > This is great!! > > I had a procedural question, is part of the release process changing the > various "latest" tags for docker images (openwhisk/invoker, etc) to > "incubator-1.0.0" in the ansible/yaml files that specify docker images to > pull, or is that not needed because this is a source only release and there > will not be matching docker images? > > --dave >
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
+1
Vincent
What do you mean by "There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be
released."
I think you mean repos/subcomponents
Dave,
This is source only release, which is what's required by ASF, literaly
taking the source control repository and doing a tar with it's content
excluding any files that should not be part of the release src tgz.
About git tags, I think the goal is after release is done and final content
released, would be to go pack for each repo and create a tag to mark the
git repo with a more friendly human readable string like you mentioned
"incubator-${version}`.
This also gives the benefit to use github "compare" feature [1] (i.e.
http://github.com///compare/[...])
[1] https://blog.github.com/2010-03-01-introducing-github-compare-view/
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:27 AM David P Grove wrote:
>
>
>
> "Vincent S Hou" wrote on 06/20/2018 06:47:25 AM:
> >
> > We are currently working on the first release of OpenWhisk. The
> > version name is called incubator-1.0.0, and the subversion is
> > rc2(rc1 as a pilot, has been existing for while).
> >
> > There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be released.
> > The PR in OpenWhisk release repo contains all the information of the
> > hash values of all the repositories: https://
> > urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >
>
> u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dopenwhisk-2Drelease_pull_190=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
>
> > siA1ZOg=Fe4FicGBU_20P2yihxV-
> > apaNSFb6BSj6AlkptSF2gMk=fyO8VqoMt6Yv9Lv7Yf5eUOQgH74eoKPi_3p_WU-
> > hZEw=mONyOT6wjdWl4JJQg685CHlwAU469EtEj_c49PytCnI=. The artifacts
> > will be generated, when this PR is merged.
> >
> > If you have any questions or concerns, please chime in with your
> comments.
> >
>
> This is great!!
>
> I had a procedural question, is part of the release process changing the
> various "latest" tags for docker images (openwhisk/invoker, etc) to
> "incubator-1.0.0" in the ansible/yaml files that specify docker images to
> pull, or is that not needed because this is a source only release and there
> will not be matching docker images?
>
> --dave
>
Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
Dave, We will release the artifacts for source code only, so there will not be tagged docker images. It does not matter what we have tagged the existing images. 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: s...@us.ibm.com, Phone: +1(919)254-7182 Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States -"David P Grove" wrote: - To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org From: "David P Grove" Date: 06/20/2018 08:27AM Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk "Vincent S Hou" wrote on 06/20/2018 06:47:25 AM: > > We are currently working on the first release of OpenWhisk. The > version name is called incubator-1.0.0, and the subversion is > rc2(rc1 as a pilot, has been existing for while). > > There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be released. > The PR in OpenWhisk release repo contains all the information of the > hash values of all the repositories: https:// > urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url? > u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dopenwhisk-2Drelease_pull_190=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx- > siA1ZOg=Fe4FicGBU_20P2yihxV- > apaNSFb6BSj6AlkptSF2gMk=fyO8VqoMt6Yv9Lv7Yf5eUOQgH74eoKPi_3p_WU- > hZEw=mONyOT6wjdWl4JJQg685CHlwAU469EtEj_c49PytCnI=. The artifacts > will be generated, when this PR is merged. > > If you have any questions or concerns, please chime in with your comments. > This is great!! I had a procedural question, is part of the release process changing the various "latest" tags for docker images (openwhisk/invoker, etc) to "incubator-1.0.0" in the ansible/yaml files that specify docker images to pull, or is that not needed because this is a source only release and there will not be matching docker images? --dave
[Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk
Hi OpenWhiskers, We are currently working on the first release of OpenWhisk. The version name is called incubator-1.0.0, and the subversion is rc2(rc1 as a pilot, has been existing for while). There will be 13 openwhisk projected to be released. The PR in OpenWhisk release repo contains all the information of the hash values of all the repositories: https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/pull/190. The artifacts will be generated, when this PR is merged. If you have any questions or concerns, please chime in with your comments. Thank you. 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: s...@us.ibm.com, Phone: +1(919)254-7182 Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States
