subject:"\[VOTE\] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0\-incubating"

Correction:
We removed the gradle wrapper in the package. Instead, users need to download 
it and place it in the correct folder to build the source code.

Regarding the copyright, we will remove the one for lightbend, and keep the one 
for spray project.

Hi Luciano,

We will remove the md5.

Version number will be added.

We have a comprehensive definition about which kind of source files include 
long or short version of license header.
Please refer to this link: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/blob/master/docs/license_compliance.md.
 Ansible files will be equipped with short version of license header. Both full 
and short versions are acceptable.

OpenWhisk is a scala-based project, which relies on gradle build. The gradle 
jar is included for build purpose only. We were investigating whether we should 
include this gradle jar. We did not find any official documents regarding that, 
but we see many other scal-based Apache project released their source code with 
the gradle jar, since it is used for the basic build need. For example, apache 
beam, available https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/2.5.0/.
So we decided to release it together with the source code.

We are now doubling confirming the copyright of spray caching.

Thanks for the comments.

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

-Luciano Resende  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Luciano Resende 
Date: 06/29/2018 08:36AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk 
module

We are recommending not to use MD5 anymore, so before going to IPMC please
delete that.

The source tar file extracts to incubator-openwhisk without the version
info, which might be overwritten by next release.

Most of the ansible files do not have the full Apache License header, but
something like a two-liner version of it, is this acceptable?

Also, could you please check the proper info/copyright for the Spray
dependency, the link provided on the license says:
Copyright © 2011-2015 the spray project <http://spray.io>
But the openwhisky license file has copyright info like:
Copyright (C) 2017 Lightbend Inc. <http://www.lightbend.com/>

Also, we recommend that source distributions have no binary files, and this
seem to have a gradle related jar bundled together.

I am +0, but most of the items above are issues that may come up when you
reach IPMC, so be prepared to have an answer for them.

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:27 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk
> 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module.
>
> List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this release can be found at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-213.
>
> To learn more about Apache OpenWhisk, please visit
> https://openwhisk.apache.org/.
>
> This  release comprises of source code distribution only. There is one
> module within this release. The artifact was built from  the following Git
> commit ID:
> * openwhisk: 76dadd2, Bump gradle and scoverage version
>
> The source code artifacts can be found at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz
>
> The MD5 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.md5
>
> The SHA-512 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.sha512
>
> The signature of this artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.asc
>
> KEYS file is available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS
>
> The documentation can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/doc/INSTALL.md
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> [ ] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release and the reason
>
> Checklist for reference:
> [ ] Download links are valid.
> [ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> [ ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
> [ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correc

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

Hi Luciano,

The issue regarding the license in Spray. Here is something interesting I just 
found:
We actually rewrote some implementation by copying some code from 
spray.caching.Cache and spray.caching.SimpleLruCache.
The spray version we use is 1.3.4, which used to be license apache 2.0 with 
Copyright © 2011-2015 the spray project.

However, spray is superseded by Akka http later, and the copyright became 
Copyright (C) 2017 Lightbend Inc.

I am not sure which we shall keep.

I tend to keep the one with Copyright © 2011-2015 the spray project, because 
this is the version we refer to, and the copyright it used to be.
For the latest version of Akka http, replacing spray, we cannot find 
spray.caching.Cache and spray.caching.SimpleLruCache, any more, as the code
evolves. 

What is your opinion on it? Thx.

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

-Luciano Resende  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Luciano Resende 
Date: 06/29/2018 08:36AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk 
module

We are recommending not to use MD5 anymore, so before going to IPMC please
delete that.

The source tar file extracts to incubator-openwhisk without the version
info, which might be overwritten by next release.

Most of the ansible files do not have the full Apache License header, but
something like a two-liner version of it, is this acceptable?

Also, could you please check the proper info/copyright for the Spray
dependency, the link provided on the license says:
Copyright © 2011-2015 the spray project <http://spray.io>
But the openwhisky license file has copyright info like:
Copyright (C) 2017 Lightbend Inc. <http://www.lightbend.com/>

Also, we recommend that source distributions have no binary files, and this
seem to have a gradle related jar bundled together.

I am +0, but most of the items above are issues that may come up when you
reach IPMC, so be prepared to have an answer for them.

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:27 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk
> 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module.
>
> List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this release can be found at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-213.
>
> To learn more about Apache OpenWhisk, please visit
> https://openwhisk.apache.org/.
>
> This  release comprises of source code distribution only. There is one
> module within this release. The artifact was built from  the following Git
> commit ID:
> * openwhisk: 76dadd2, Bump gradle and scoverage version
>
> The source code artifacts can be found at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz
>
> The MD5 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.md5
>
> The SHA-512 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.sha512
>
> The signature of this artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.asc
>
> KEYS file is available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS
>
> The documentation can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/doc/INSTALL.md
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> [ ] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release and the reason
>
> Checklist for reference:
> [ ] Download links are valid.
> [ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> [ ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
> [ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
> [ ] All files have license headers if necessary.
> [ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

Can we use the current key for the release of 0.9.0, and change the key later?
OpenWhisk looks fine so far regarding the release process. If we resign it, we 
have to re-run the vote.

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

-Luciano Resende  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Luciano Resende 
Date: 06/29/2018 11:11AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk 
module

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:29 AM Vincent S Hou  wrote:

> This is the key, which is used by the Travis job. The private key is
> encrypted in the repo of incubator-openwhisk-release.
>
> For further releases, what email and use id can we use? Do we have them
> handy somewhere? @Bertrand, do you have suggestions?
>

What we recommend is to use the release manager personal key for signing
the release, he would usually have his own apache account info for
e-mail/id.

-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

Hi Luciano,

We will remove the md5.

Version number will be added.

We have a comprehensive definition about which kind of source files include 
long or short version of license header.
Please refer to this link: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/blob/master/docs/license_compliance.md.
 Ansible files will be equipped with short version of license header. Both full 
and short versions are acceptable.

We are now doubling confirming the copyright of spray caching, and figuring out 
the gradle jar issue.

Thanks for the comments.

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

-Luciano Resende  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Luciano Resende 
Date: 06/29/2018 08:36AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk 
module

We are recommending not to use MD5 anymore, so before going to IPMC please
delete that.

The source tar file extracts to incubator-openwhisk without the version
info, which might be overwritten by next release.

Most of the ansible files do not have the full Apache License header, but
something like a two-liner version of it, is this acceptable?

Also, could you please check the proper info/copyright for the Spray
dependency, the link provided on the license says:
Copyright © 2011-2015 the spray project <http://spray.io>
But the openwhisky license file has copyright info like:
Copyright (C) 2017 Lightbend Inc. <http://www.lightbend.com/>

Also, we recommend that source distributions have no binary files, and this
seem to have a gradle related jar bundled together.

I am +0, but most of the items above are issues that may come up when you
reach IPMC, so be prepared to have an answer for them.

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:27 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk
> 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module.
>
> List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this release can be found at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-213.
>
> To learn more about Apache OpenWhisk, please visit
> https://openwhisk.apache.org/.
>
> This  release comprises of source code distribution only. There is one
> module within this release. The artifact was built from  the following Git
> commit ID:
> * openwhisk: 76dadd2, Bump gradle and scoverage version
>
> The source code artifacts can be found at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz
>
> The MD5 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.md5
>
> The SHA-512 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.sha512
>
> The signature of this artifact can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.asc
>
> KEYS file is available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS
>
> The documentation can be found via:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/doc/INSTALL.md
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> [ ] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release and the reason
>
> Checklist for reference:
> [ ] Download links are valid.
> [ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> [ ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
> [ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
> [ ] All files have license headers if necessary.
> [ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-29 Thread Luciano Resende

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:29 AM Vincent S Hou  wrote:

> This is the key, which is used by the Travis job. The private key is
> encrypted in the repo of incubator-openwhisk-release.
>
> For further releases, what email and use id can we use? Do we have them
> handy somewhere? @Bertrand, do you have suggestions?
>

What we recommend is to use the release manager personal key for signing
the release, he would usually have his own apache account info for
e-mail/id.

-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-29 Thread Rodric Rabbah

Can we upload a key to the PGP Global Directory and verify it?

-r

> On Jun 29, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> 
> This is the key, which is used by the Travis job. The private key is 
> encrypted in the repo of incubator-openwhisk-release.
> 
> For further releases, what email and use id can we use? Do we have them handy 
> somewhere? @Bertrand, do you have suggestions?
> 
> 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
> 
> -Rodric Rabbah  wrote: -
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> From: Rodric Rabbah 
> Date: 06/29/2018 08:04AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk 
> module
> 
> As Bertrand wrote:
> 
> gpg: Signature made Mon Jun 25 23:11:21 2018 CEST using RSA key ID 22CC20CC
>> gpg: Good signature from "OpenWhisk Release Bot (Release of OpenWhisk)
>> " [unknown]
>> 
> 
> The key does not appear to be verified. Further can we not use an @
> apache.org email address vs this gmail id (who owns that)?
> 
> -r
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

This is the key, which is used by the Travis job. The private key is encrypted 
in the repo of incubator-openwhisk-release.

For further releases, what email and use id can we use? Do we have them handy 
somewhere? @Bertrand, do you have suggestions?

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

-Rodric Rabbah  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Rodric Rabbah 
Date: 06/29/2018 08:04AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk 
module

As Bertrand wrote:

gpg: Signature made Mon Jun 25 23:11:21 2018 CEST using RSA key ID 22CC20CC
> gpg: Good signature from "OpenWhisk Release Bot (Release of OpenWhisk)
> " [unknown]
>

The key does not appear to be verified. Further can we not use an @
apache.org email address vs this gmail id (who owns that)?

-r

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-29 Thread Chetan Mehrotra

+1 on the release.

Done validation on Mac

[X] Download links are valid.
[0] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. (did not verify on this point
iteration)
[X] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
[X ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo. -
Done via running scanCode
[X] All files have license headers if necessary.
[X ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive

As mentioned by others would be helpful to make steps more precise
where commands can be copied verbatim (like wget to download the
released artifacts)

Thanks for putting this altogether and automating the process! Would
be of great help in future
Chetan Mehrotra

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, David P Grove  wrote:
> +1 on the release.
>
> I verified that sources built on MacOS and checked the following items:
>
> [ X ] Download links are valid.
> [ X ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> [ X ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current
> release.
> [ X ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
> [  ] All files have license headers if necessary.
> [ X ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
>
> --dave

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-28 Thread David P Grove

+1 on the release.

I verified that sources built on MacOS and checked the following items:

[ X ] Download links are valid.
[ X ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[ X ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current
release.
[ X ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
[  ] All files have license headers if necessary.
[ X ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.

--dave

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-28 Thread Ying Chun Guo



I vote +1 for Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.

Checklist:
[X] Download links are valid.
[X] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
[X] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
[X] All files have license headers if necessary.
[X] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.

Best regards
Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)


-"Vincent S Hou"  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: "Vincent S Hou" 
Date: 06/26/2018 05:27AM
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

Hi everyone,

This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk 
0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module.

List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this release can be found at 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-213.

To learn more about Apache OpenWhisk, please visit 
https://openwhisk.apache.org/.

This  release comprises of source code distribution only. There is one module 
within this release. The artifact was built from  the following Git commit ID:
* openwhisk: 76dadd2, Bump gradle and scoverage version

The source code artifacts can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz

The MD5 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.md5

The SHA-512 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.sha512

The signature of this artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.asc

KEYS file is available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS

The documentation can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/doc/INSTALL.md

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release and the reason

Checklist for reference:
[ ] Download links are valid.
[ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[ ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
[ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
[ ] All files have license headers if necessary.
[ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.

Thank you very much.

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-28 Thread James Thomas

+1 on this release.

Checklist for reference:
[X] Download links are valid.
[0] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. (did not verify on this point
iteration)
[X] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
[X ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
[X] All files have license headers if necessary.
[X ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.

On 28 June 2018 at 09:03, Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:22 AM Markus Thoemmes
>  wrote:
> ...
> > - [✓] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. (Other than
> gradlew.jar)
> 
> > Is there a procedure to verify the last point? I quickly did a find for
> jar files and a find for executable files...
>
> I also use find + file to look for binaries, something like
>
>   find . -type f | xargs -n10 file | grep -v ASCII
>
> -Bertrand
>

-- 
Regards,
James Thomas

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-28 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:22 AM Markus Thoemmes
 wrote:
...
> - [✓] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. (Other than gradlew.jar)

> Is there a procedure to verify the last point? I quickly did a find for jar 
> files and a find for executable files...

I also use find + file to look for binaries, something like

  find . -type f | xargs -n10 file | grep -v ASCII

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-28 Thread Markus Thoemmes

Hey,

+1 on releasing this!

Checklist for reference:
- [✓] Download links are valid.
- [✓] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
- [✓] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
- [✓] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
- [✓] All files have license headers if necessary. (Scanning files succeeded 
with "All checks passed.")
- [✓] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. (Other than gradlew.jar)

Some feedback on the readme: It's great in general! We could improve some bits, 
to make it easier for a "reviewer" to verify all the steps. (For example: Fully 
qualify the commands with the artifact rather than adding a placeholder, add 
"wget" commands to download the entities, add the commands needed for the 
codescan).

Is there a procedure to verify the last point? I quickly did a find for jar 
files and a find for executable files.

Thanks for doing this!

Cheers,
-m

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-28 Thread Dominic Kim

Hey~ Since I am on the biz trip, I am a bit late.

Definitely +1 on this.

Great work~! Vincent.

I tried all things based on the guide and found all things correct except
one small thing.
Regarding the following part in the guide, I think those commands should
run under "incubator-openwhisk/ansible" directory not under
"incubator-openwhisk".

## Deploy OpenWhisk

Stay under the directory of incubator-openwhisk, and run the following
ansible scripts one by one:

```
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local setup.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local prereq.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local couchdb.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local initdb.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local wipe.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local apigateway.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local openwhisk.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local postdeploy.yml
```


Checklist for reference:
- [✓] Download links are valid.
- [✓] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
- [✓] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
- [✓] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
- [✓] All files have license headers if necessary. (Scanning files
succeeded with "All checks passed.")

Thanks
Regards
Dominic

2018-06-28 5:38 GMT+08:00 Brendan McAdams :

> +1
>
>
> > [✓] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
>
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 Do not release and the reason
> >
> > Checklist for reference:
> > [✓] Download links are valid.
> > [✓] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
>
> *I wasn’t able to get the mit pgpkeys server to respond to a request for
> the key (either timed or errored out), per the Apache “verifying release”
> instructions , but the
> keys
> provided directly match up in a gpg verify.*
>
> > [✓] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current
> release.
>
> [✓] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
>
> [✓] All files have license headers if necessary.
>
> *I used the same process as Carlos did in his reply, using
> incubator-openwhisk-utilities to verify license headers. “All checks
> passed”. *
>
> > [✓] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
>
> *Only exception is the gradle-wrapper.jar, which Carlos noted. I’m assuming
> there’s no redistribution issue with including that.*
>
> -b
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-27 Thread Brendan McAdams

+1


> [✓] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

[ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release and the reason
>
> Checklist for reference:
> [✓] Download links are valid.
> [✓] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.

*I wasn’t able to get the mit pgpkeys server to respond to a request for
the key (either timed or errored out), per the Apache “verifying release”
instructions , but the keys
provided directly match up in a gpg verify.*

> [✓] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.

[✓] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.

[✓] All files have license headers if necessary.

*I used the same process as Carlos did in his reply, using
incubator-openwhisk-utilities to verify license headers. “All checks
passed”. *

> [✓] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.

*Only exception is the gradle-wrapper.jar, which Carlos noted. I’m assuming
there’s no redistribution issue with including that.*

-b

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-27 Thread Priti Desai

I vote +1

Checklist for reference:
- [X] Download links are valid.
- [X] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
- [X] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current 
release.
- [X] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
- [X] All files have license headers if necessary. (Scanning files 
succeeded with "All checks passed.")

Cheers
Priti

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-27 Thread Matt Rutkowski

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[X] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release and the reason

Checklist for reference:
[X] Download links are valid.
[0] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. (did not verify on this point 
iteration)
[X] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
[X ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
[X] All files have license headers if necessary.
[X ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.

On 2018/06/25 21:15:01, "Vincent S Hou"  wrote: 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk 
> 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module.
> 
> List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this release can be found at 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-213.
> 
> To learn more about Apache OpenWhisk, please visit 
> https://openwhisk.apache.org/.
> 
> This  release comprises of source code distribution only. There is one module 
> within this release. The artifact was built from  the following Git commit ID:
> * openwhisk: 76dadd2, Bump gradle and scoverage version
> 
> The source code artifacts can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz
> 
> The MD5 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.md5
> 
> The SHA-512 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.sha512
> 
> The signature of this artifact can be found via:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.asc
> 
> KEYS file is available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS
> 
> The documentation can be found via:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/doc/INSTALL.md
> 
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.
> 
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> [ ] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release and the reason
> 
> Checklist for reference:
> [ ] Download links are valid.
> [ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> [ ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
> [ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
> [ ] All files have license headers if necessary.
> [ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> 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
> 
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-26 Thread Carlos Santana

I vote +1

Checklist:
- [x] Download links are valid.
- [x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
- [x] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
- [x] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
- [x] All files have license headers if necessary.
$ python ../apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities/scancode/scanCode.py
--config ../apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities/scancode/ASF-Release.cfg
incubator-openwhisk/
Reading configuration file
[/dev/whisk/git/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities/scancode/ASF-Release.cfg]...
Scanning files starting at [incubator-openwhisk/]...
All checks passed.
- [x] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
Only one jar found in
`incubator-openwhisk/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar`
- [x] Build from source via `./gradlew distDocker`
- [x] Deploy via ansible
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local setup.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local couchdb.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local initdb.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local wipe.yml
$ ansible-playbook -i environments/local openwhisk.yml
- [x] Run a serverless function
$ wsk property set --apihost 172.17.0.1 --auth $(cat
ansible/files/auth.guest)
ok: whisk auth set. Run 'wsk property get --auth' to see the new value.
ok: whisk API host set to 172.17.0.1
$ echo 'const main=()=>{return {body:"Hello Apache!"}}' >hello.js
$ wsk -i action update hello hello.js
ok: updated action hello
$ wsk -i action invoke hello -r
{
"body": "Hello Apache!"
}

Vincent,
Similar findings as Bertrand pointed out, let's open issues in release repo
to track, should be addressed in following releases going forward.
About private key for signature you can store it in the private svn
repository that only OpenWhisk PPMC have access.

-cs


On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:27 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:
>
> > ...This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk
> 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module
>
> +1 for the release of openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz
> with SHA512()=
> 26d19d92ef4b4cf14f42fc0d425faaeb914690fcafb3dce431ea36e215c5da60ce8aad68324fdbf8a9d6e703e077923795403b80927e31feff0a21cd26da7b49
>
> Thank you Vincent and team, great work!
>
> Here's what I checked:
>
> -Signatures and digests match
> -LICENSE.txt NOTICE.txt DISCLAIMER.txt  look good to me.
> -File header checks pass using the scancode tool from
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities
> -build with /gradlew distDocker works (with a local Docker setup)
> -Filenames are ok
> -I don't see binary files in the release archive which is good, except
> for ./gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar which I think is acceptable -
> but its digest should be kept track of, maybe in a jira ticket so
> people can validate it if they want.
>
> And I have a few comments that do not block the release but need to be
> taken care of eventually, IMO (some carried over from the previous
> canceled vote):
>
> 0) Could you move the files found under
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/
> that are not part of this release to a different subfolder? For
> clarity.
>
> 1) The .scala code files are in whisk.* packages, that should be
> org.apache.openwhisk.* for an Apache project.
>
> 2) There's an RSA private key in the source archive, if it's for
> testing purposes it should be clearly identified as such (ideally
> named test- something) to reassure people that it's not problematic to
> distribute it (./ansible/roles/nginx/files/openwhisk-server-key.pem).
>
> 3) The signature matches but the key is
>
> gpg: Signature made Mon Jun 25 23:11:21 2018 CEST using RSA key ID 22CC20CC
> gpg: Good signature from "OpenWhisk Release Bot (Release of OpenWhisk)
> " [unknown]
>
> Is that "release bot" key secure, and who owns it?
>
> 4) The ansible setup is apparently hardcoded with 172.17.0.1 as the
> Docker host and requires a fairly specific initial setup on the host,
> I got a few errors and gave up - not a blocker for the release, but
> there's probably room for improvement either in the setup or in
> specifying a clear starting point like a specific host version, or
> Docker image or Vagrant box.
>
> 7) INSTALL.md says "Stay under the directory of incubator-openwhisk"
> but I needed to "cd ansible" first.
>
> -Bertrand (OpenWhisk incubation mentor)
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-26 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:27 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:

> ...This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk 
> 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

+1 for the release of openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz
with SHA512()= 
26d19d92ef4b4cf14f42fc0d425faaeb914690fcafb3dce431ea36e215c5da60ce8aad68324fdbf8a9d6e703e077923795403b80927e31feff0a21cd26da7b49

Thank you Vincent and team, great work!

Here's what I checked:

-Signatures and digests match
-LICENSE.txt NOTICE.txt DISCLAIMER.txt  look good to me.
-File header checks pass using the scancode tool from
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities
-build with /gradlew distDocker works (with a local Docker setup)
-Filenames are ok
-I don't see binary files in the release archive which is good, except
for ./gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar which I think is acceptable -
but its digest should be kept track of, maybe in a jira ticket so
people can validate it if they want.

And I have a few comments that do not block the release but need to be
taken care of eventually, IMO (some carried over from the previous
canceled vote):

0) Could you move the files found under
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/
that are not part of this release to a different subfolder? For
clarity.

1) The .scala code files are in whisk.* packages, that should be
org.apache.openwhisk.* for an Apache project.

2) There's an RSA private key in the source archive, if it's for
testing purposes it should be clearly identified as such (ideally
named test- something) to reassure people that it's not problematic to
distribute it (./ansible/roles/nginx/files/openwhisk-server-key.pem).

3) The signature matches but the key is

gpg: Signature made Mon Jun 25 23:11:21 2018 CEST using RSA key ID 22CC20CC
gpg: Good signature from "OpenWhisk Release Bot (Release of OpenWhisk)
" [unknown]

Is that "release bot" key secure, and who owns it?

4) The ansible setup is apparently hardcoded with 172.17.0.1 as the
Docker host and requires a fairly specific initial setup on the host,
I got a few errors and gave up - not a blocker for the release, but
there's probably room for improvement either in the setup or in
specifying a clear starting point like a specific host version, or
Docker image or Vagrant box.

7) INSTALL.md says "Stay under the directory of incubator-openwhisk"
but I needed to "cd ansible" first.

-Bertrand (OpenWhisk incubation mentor)

[VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

2018-06-25 Thread Vincent S Hou

Hi everyone,

This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk
0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module.

List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this release can be found at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-213.

To learn more about Apache OpenWhisk, please visit
https://openwhisk.apache.org/.

This release comprises of source code distribution only. There is one module
within this release. The artifact was built from the following Git commit ID:
* openwhisk: 76dadd2, Bump gradle and scoverage version

The source code artifacts can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz

The MD5 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.md5

The SHA-512 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.sha512

The signature of this artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.asc

KEYS file is available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS

The documentation can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/doc/INSTALL.md

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release and the reason

Thank you very much.

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-25 Thread Vincent S Hou

Bertrand,

For the module main openwhisk to be released for the first time, we do not ship 
the test cases, since there are many packages as the test data, we do not want 
to ship so far. After we configure out how risky they are, we will ship the 
test cases.

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

-Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Bertrand Delacretaz 
Date: 06/23/2018 05:39AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Rodric,

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:52 PM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> > ...I mean if only release this go client code, there is nothing we can run 
> > it against.

> And that is entirely fine per all the ASF docs I’ve read. Is there a 
> requirement that the code must be
> functional in some extended capacity?...

There's no such requirement for a podling release, especially not for
your first Incubator release.

I would expect that the released module has unit tests that pass when
building it, but that module not being usable in isolation is not a
problem, from the Incubator PMC's point of view.

Of course the ultimate goal is for OpenWhisk to release fantastic
software, we're not doing all this just to keep "the system" happy ;-)

But I think "priming the system" as Matt says, by releasing a single
module, will get us there faster and with less effort.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-25 Thread Vincent S Hou

Chetan,

That is really good to use Apache Maven Staging repo for our release process in 
future.
So far our release tool is openwhisk-release: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release. Either manual or 
automated mode can push the artifacts into
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/.

I was wondering if Maven release can be integrated to current process. Feel 
free to open an issue and draft the plan.

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

-Chetan Mehrotra  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Chetan Mehrotra 
Date: 06/25/2018 06:40AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

> Based on all the discussion on a VOTE mail thread, we can go with the
release of one module, which the main openwhisk module, for the initial
Apache release

@Vincent Looking at current released artifacts it appears we are only
releasing source tars. Going forward we should look into including Maven
release of various sub modules in main OpenWhisk repo like
openwhisk-common, openwhisk-controller etc as part of vote. Until vote they
would be present in Apache Maven Staging repo and post vote they would be
publish to global Maven repo. See [1] for reference.

Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi Rodric,
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:52 PM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> > > ...I mean if only release this go client code, there is nothing we can
> run it against.
>
> > And that is entirely fine per all the ASF docs I’ve read. Is there a
> requirement that the code must be
> > functional in some extended capacity?...
>
> There's no such requirement for a podling release, especially not for
> your first Incubator release.
>
> I would expect that the released module has unit tests that pass when
> building it, but that module not being usable in isolation is not a
> problem, from the Incubator PMC's point of view.
>
> Of course the ultimate goal is for OpenWhisk to release fantastic
> software, we're not doing all this just to keep "the system" happy ;-)
>
> But I think "priming the system" as Matt says, by releasing a single
> module, will get us there faster and with less effort.
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-23 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

Hi Rodric,

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:52 PM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> > ...I mean if only release this go client code, there is nothing we can run 
> > it against.

> And that is entirely fine per all the ASF docs I’ve read. Is there a 
> requirement that the code must be
> functional in some extended capacity?...

There's no such requirement for a podling release, especially not for
your first Incubator release.

I would expect that the released module has unit tests that pass when
building it, but that module not being usable in isolation is not a
problem, from the Incubator PMC's point of view.

Of course the ultimate goal is for OpenWhisk to release fantastic
software, we're not doing all this just to keep "the system" happy ;-)

But I think "priming the system" as Matt says, by releasing a single
module, will get us there faster and with less effort.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-23 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

Hi Matt,

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:20 PM Matt Rutkowski  wrote:
> ...I am fine with making it "easier" for the Incubator board...

Nitpicking: there is no "Incubator Board" - there's the Incubator PMC,
which will review the OpenWhisk releases, and the Apache Software
Foundation Board, which has nothing to do with this process (except
overseeing it from afar).

> ...If this is about making sure that they review our 
> process/methodology/conformance then 1 repo.
> will do, but we should quickly follow with the other 12 (which should be 
> easier after priming the system)

Yes, that's exactly the idea!

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Vincent S Hou

Based on all the discussion on a VOTE mail thread, we can go with the release 
of one module, which the main openwhisk module, for the initial Apache release.
I will prepare another VOTE mail separately. Let's close this mail thread, 
unless someone opposes to release main openwhisk.

Thanks.

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: 06/22/2018 09:39AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

+1

--dave

Carlos Santana ---06/22/2018 09:23:55 AM---I will take Bertrand's mentorship 
advice and release 1 module This is just to go thru the ASF releas

From:Carlos Santana 
To:dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:06/22/2018 09:23 AM
Subject:    Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

I will take Bertrand's mentorship advice and release 1 module

This is just to go thru the ASF release process and voting.
To verify that the source code is free from legal problems, and follows all
the legal requirements

We just need to go thru one round with the IPMC and explain that this is
our first practice run to get the go-client 0.9.0 module
Stating that this module is part of a larger suite that will come after

Not required, but if folks want to test something about the code in the
single tgz they can run the go tests (this will compiled and run go unit
tests)

And then follow with the other 12 modules same version 0.9.0 as their
initial version for each module.

Take into account we can separate what we communicate to the outside
OpenWhisk end user community as a downloadable, deployable openwhisk
platform stack.
For example I will hold off a blog post and twitter announcement, until we
have a full suite of modules blessed/released and in the ASF dist download
site, and have a single page on the webstie (openwhisik.apache.org), that
end users that want to download and install the serverless platform stack,
can go there and and be able to download all the modules and deploy them
together, or pick one of the modules if they only need one.

--cs

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:52 AM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:

>
> > On Jun 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> >
> > I mean if only release this go client code, there is nothing we can run
> it against.
>
> And that is entirely fine per all the ASF docs I’ve read. Is there a
> requirement that the code must be functional in some extended capacity?
>
> The ASF docs point out verification steps but none include actually
> running anything from what I’ve learned so far.
>
> I don’t think Bertrand, Rob, or I are saying not to release all 13 but
> rather go through with just 1 repository first end to end.
>
> The Apache motto is release early release often, no?
>
> -r

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Matt Rutkowski



I am fine with making it "easier" for the Incubator board, but we should at 
least be ingenuous and release the main openwhisk repo. IMO

If this is about making sure that they review our 
process/methodology/conformance then 1 repo. will do, but we should quickly 
follow with the other 12 (which should be easier after priming the system).

-mr
 
On 2018/06/22 13:23:29, Carlos Santana  wrote: 
> I will take Bertrand's mentorship advice and release 1 module
> 
> This is just to go thru the ASF release process and voting.
> To verify that the source code is free from legal problems, and follows all
> the legal requirements
> 
> We just need to go thru one round with the IPMC and explain that this is
> our first practice run to get the go-client 0.9.0 module
> Stating that this module is part of a larger suite that will come after
> 
> Not required, but if folks want to test something about the code in the
> single tgz they can run the go tests (this will compiled and run go unit
> tests)
> 
> And then follow with the other 12 modules same version 0.9.0 as their
> initial version for each module.
> 
> Take into account we can separate what we communicate to the outside
> OpenWhisk end user community as a downloadable, deployable openwhisk
> platform stack.
> For example I will hold off a blog post and twitter announcement, until we
> have a full suite of modules blessed/released and in the ASF dist download
> site, and have a single page on the webstie (openwhisik.apache.org), that
> end users that want to download and install the serverless platform stack,
> can go there and and be able to download all the modules and deploy them
> together, or pick one of the modules if they only need one.
> 
> --cs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:52 AM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:
> 
> >
> > > On Jun 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> > >
> > > I mean if only release this go client code, there is nothing we can run
> > it against.
> >
> > And that is entirely fine per all the ASF docs I’ve read. Is there a
> > requirement that the code must be functional in some extended capacity?
> >
> > The ASF docs point out verification steps but none include actually
> > running anything from what I’ve learned so far.
> >
> > I don’t think Bertrand, Rob, or I are saying not to release all 13 but
> > rather go through with just 1 repository first end to end.
> >
> > The Apache motto is release early release often, no?
> >
> > -r
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Carlos Santana

I will take Bertrand's mentorship advice and release 1 module

This is just to go thru the ASF release process and voting.
To verify that the source code is free from legal problems, and follows all
the legal requirements

We just need to go thru one round with the IPMC and explain that this is
our first practice run to get the go-client 0.9.0 module
Stating that this module is part of a larger suite that will come after

Not required, but if folks want to test something about the code in the
single tgz they can run the go tests (this will compiled and run go unit
tests)

And then follow with the other 12 modules same version 0.9.0 as their
initial version for each module.

Take into account we can separate what we communicate to the outside
OpenWhisk end user community as a downloadable, deployable openwhisk
platform stack.
For example I will hold off a blog post and twitter announcement, until we
have a full suite of modules blessed/released and in the ASF dist download
site, and have a single page on the webstie (openwhisik.apache.org), that
end users that want to download and install the serverless platform stack,
can go there and and be able to download all the modules and deploy them
together, or pick one of the modules if they only need one.

--cs

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:52 AM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:

>
> > On Jun 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> >
> > I mean if only release this go client code, there is nothing we can run
> it against.
>
> And that is entirely fine per all the ASF docs I’ve read. Is there a
> requirement that the code must be functional in some extended capacity?
>
> The ASF docs point out verification steps but none include actually
> running anything from what I’ve learned so far.
>
> I don’t think Bertrand, Rob, or I are saying not to release all 13 but
> rather go through with just 1 repository first end to end.
>
> The Apache motto is release early release often, no?
>
> -r

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Rodric Rabbah

> On Jun 22, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> 
> I mean if only release this go client code, there is nothing we can run it 
> against.

And that is entirely fine per all the ASF docs I’ve read. Is there a 
requirement that the code must be functional in some extended capacity?

The ASF docs point out verification steps but none include actually running 
anything from what I’ve learned so far. 

I don’t think Bertrand, Rob, or I are saying not to release all 13 but rather 
go through with just 1 repository first end to end. 

The Apache motto is release early release often, no?

-r

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Vincent S Hou

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the reply. 

Based on the current nature of openwhisk, all the 13 repos/modules are working 
together. If we only release one module, for example, the client go(go sdk) as 
suggested, it is a purely client tool, which needs the openwhisk service 
running, in order to run against. If there is only this client go(go sdk) 
offered to ASF incubator with no other components, how can they verify the 
functionality? If they have no idea whether it works correctly, how could this 
initial go sdk get passed, unless you have a different opinion? This is my 
concern to merely release one for the first time.

All the modules by far need to run as complete platform. We have openwhisk 
offering the service, client go, cli and other tools as the client to access 
them. We need to have different runtimes to make sure openwhisk supports. It is 
like a FIFA World CUP team, which needs 11 players to field in order to play.

To make life easier, I can consolidate all the modules into tar and come up 
with a instruction and scripts to make installation and verification explained. 
Folks can download it only once, read the instructions, run the scripts as 
needed, and bingo. What do you think??

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

-Rob Allen  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Rob Allen 
Date: 06/22/2018 01:46AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

> On 22 Jun 2018, at 05:14, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> 
> Great thanks to folks with votes and the comments.

Wow, a lot happened on my travel day! 

> As a recap of current replies we have received, we have opened a list of 
> issues to be fixed for OpenWhisk in the coming release or further releases:

I’m happy with items 1-5. As long as the ASF incubator people are happy with a 
release that doesn’t have the org.apache.openwhisk.* package name, it all seems 
fine.

> Regarding how many repositories we are going to release, we decided to 
> continue with the release of 13 repositories, after my discussions with many 
> OpenWhiskers. All the 13 repos by far are great intelligent assets, which 
> have been evolving during the past months or even years. 

FWiW, I strongly disagree with this. Bertrand took a fairly cursory look over 
the first attempt at a release and came up with a laundry list of items to be 
addressed - none of which were related to the operation of the code itself or 
even the build process. 

It’s reasonable to assume that when it goes to the Incubator people, they are 
going to have another list of items to address that are again nothing to do 
with the operation of the code.

It seems to me that it would be much easier and *polite* to get all the way 
through to a release tarball on the Apache servers with a single component 
that’s reasonably easy for the Incubator people to assess and check that we’ve 
got everything right. 

It really doesn’t matter what it is as it’s all about the release process 
details. Rodric suggested wskdeploy or the GoSDK. Either would work really well 
as they are small and easily buildable.

I see no reason why once we successfully get the first tarball onto the Apache 
servers, we can’t start rolling the “big” product (the 13 inter-related 
tarballs) the following day as 0.9.1. If we really want 0.9.0 to be the full 
caboodle, then, we can do the “get-our-ducks-in-row” release of wskdeploy as 
0.8.0.

Regards,

Rob

-- 
(“-ra” just looks wrong!)

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Vincent S Hou

This is pure go source code as the client. If there is no server(openwhisk not 
release or available), how do we test? If there is an openwhisk, we just grab 
it and run it. We need to add the steps as the instructions, but it is based on 
there is an openwhisk service running. I mean if only release this go client 
code, there is nothing we can run it against.

No need to build it, since it is not CLI. We do not need to generate anything.

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

-Rodric Rabbah  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Rodric Rabbah 
Date: 06/22/2018 03:40AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

> It’s reasonable to assume that when it goes to the Incubator people, they are 
> going to have another list of items to address that are again nothing to do 
> with the operation of the code.

Quite likely - I’m of the same opinion. So reducing the surface makes sense to 
me. Getting through all the way with a successful first step to release at 
least one of the repos is a sensible strategy given this is a first Apache 
release for the project. 

I looked through https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-client-go and it 
is the entirely self contained - all go code, no deps on other openwhisk repos.

The readme doesn’t have a built step though   (Or test although there are a 
handful of go tests in the repo).

I also don’t see why we have to use different release numbers. Each of the 
components was broken out to make them independently managed so why couldn’t 
they all eventually be released as 0.9 as part of the overall first 
distributions?

-r

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread David P Grove


"Vincent S Hou"  wrote on 06/21/2018 10:14:46 PM:

>
> Except the issues we have above, does anyone have any other concerns
> we need to take into account for the 0.9.0 release? If so, this is
> the chance to raise it; if not, we shall proceed the, after we made
> the minor fixes to the above listed issues.
>

I'd suggest adding issue 195 [1] to the list as well, especially if we are
going to be releasing multiple source tarballs.

When I downloaded a couple of the rcs yesterday to check them, the fact
that they all expanded directly into the current directory directly was
surprising.

--dave

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/195

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Ying Chun Guo

I vote +1 for Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.

I went through the check list. I think it's good for the first release.
I'm looking forward to it. Thanks Vincent for the work.

Best regards
Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)


-"Vincent S Hou"  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: "Vincent S Hou" 
Date: 06/21/2018 05:16AM
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi everyone,

This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.

List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this release can be found at 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-213.

To learn more about Apache OpenWhisk, please visit 
https://openwhisk.apache.org/.

This release comprises of source code distribution only. There are totally 13 
OpenWhisk projects within this release. The artifacts were built from the 
following Git commit IDs:
* openwhisk: 071d841, Make test-instances of Exec depend on the loaded manifest.
* openwhisk-client-go: 1e50522, Add the DISCLAIMER file for Apache incubator 
project
* openwhisk-cli: 461f94f, add OS and CPU architecture to user agent header
* openwhisk-catalog: 517341d, Add the DISCLAIMER file for Apache incubator 
project
* openwhisk-wskdeploy: 7620ef7, disabling export integration
* openwhisk-apigateway: 2b87366, Fix awk command in init.sh generating 
resolvers.conf file
* openwhisk-deploy-kube: cb9c3f5, Update runtimes for upstream changes.
* openwhisk-runtime-nodejs: 557c4bd, update nodejs 6 & 8 to latest security 
patch
* openwhisk-runtime-java: b20f90e, Add skip_pull_runtimes for Travis CI
* openwhisk-runtime-swift: 06c4972, update travis to push "master" tag to 
Docker on "master" branch merges
* openwhisk-runtime-python: a2098d9, update travis to push "master" tag to 
Docker on "master" branch merges
* openwhisk-runtime-php: b0834a5, Fix travis publish 72
* openwhisk-runtime-docker: 650842a, Add ActionProxyContainer tests

All the source code artifacts can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/

Each source code artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/[project
 name]-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz

The MD5 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/[project
 name]-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.md5

The SHA-512 checksum for each artifact can be found via:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-rc1/[project
 name]-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.sha512

KEYS file is available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS


Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release and the reason

Thank you very much.


Checklist for reference:
[ ] Download links are valid.
[ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[ ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
[ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repo.
[ ] All files have license headers if necessary.
[ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.


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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:
> ...As long as the ASF incubator people are happy with a release that doesn’t 
> have the
> org.apache.openwhisk.* package name, it all seems fine
> Can we find out by asking first before getting slammed later?..

Initial podling releases with non-apache package names are relatively
common, I don't think that will be a problem as long as there's a
documented plan to fix it before graduation.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:40 AM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:
> ...I looked through https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-client-go 
> and it is the entirely self contained -
> all go code, no deps on other openwhisk repos

Sounds like a good candidate for a first Incubator release indeed.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Rodric Rabbah



> As long as the ASF incubator people are happy with a release that doesn’t 
> have the org.apache.openwhisk.* package name, it all seems fine.

Can we find out by asking first before getting slammed later?

-r

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-22 Thread Rodric Rabbah


> It’s reasonable to assume that when it goes to the Incubator people, they are 
> going to have another list of items to address that are again nothing to do 
> with the operation of the code.

Quite likely - I’m of the same opinion. So reducing the surface makes sense to 
me. Getting through all the way with a successful first step to release at 
least one of the repos is a sensible strategy given this is a first Apache 
release for the project. 

I looked through https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-client-go and it 
is the entirely self contained - all go code, no deps on other openwhisk repos.

The readme doesn’t have a built step though   (Or test although there are a 
handful of go tests in the repo).

I also don’t see why we have to use different release numbers. Each of the 
components was broken out to make them independently managed so why couldn’t 
they all eventually be released as 0.9 as part of the overall first 
distributions?

-r

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread Rob Allen

> On 22 Jun 2018, at 05:14, Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> 
> Great thanks to folks with votes and the comments.

Wow, a lot happened on my travel day! 

> As a recap of current replies we have received, we have opened a list of 
> issues to be fixed for OpenWhisk in the coming release or further releases:

I’m happy with items 1-5. As long as the ASF incubator people are happy with a 
release that doesn’t have the org.apache.openwhisk.* package name, it all seems 
fine.

> Regarding how many repositories we are going to release, we decided to 
> continue with the release of 13 repositories, after my discussions with many 
> OpenWhiskers. All the 13 repos by far are great intelligent assets, which 
> have been evolving during the past months or even years. 

FWiW, I strongly disagree with this. Bertrand took a fairly cursory look over 
the first attempt at a release and came up with a laundry list of items to be 
addressed - none of which were related to the operation of the code itself or 
even the build process. 

It’s reasonable to assume that when it goes to the Incubator people, they are 
going to have another list of items to address that are again nothing to do 
with the operation of the code.

It seems to me that it would be much easier and *polite* to get all the way 
through to a release tarball on the Apache servers with a single component 
that’s reasonably easy for the Incubator people to assess and check that we’ve 
got everything right. 

It really doesn’t matter what it is as it’s all about the release process 
details. Rodric suggested wskdeploy or the GoSDK. Either would work really well 
as they are small and easily buildable.

I see no reason why once we successfully get the first tarball onto the Apache 
servers, we can’t start rolling the “big” product (the 13 inter-related 
tarballs) the following day as 0.9.1. If we really want 0.9.0 to be the full 
caboodle, then, we can do the “get-our-ducks-in-row” release of wskdeploy as 
0.8.0.

Regards,

Rob

-- 
(“-ra” just looks wrong!)

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread Vincent S Hou

Great thanks to folks with votes and the comments.

As a recap of current replies we have received, we have opened a list of issues 
to be fixed for OpenWhisk in the coming release or further releases:

1. Add the tutorial for 0.9.0 to build and deploy locally with source code
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/197, we will 
resolve it for 0.9.0

2. Add the instruction on how to verify the license header for each valid 
source code file
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/196, we will 
resolve it for 0.9.0

3. Add scripts to make download, unzip and installation of source code easier
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/issues/198, we will 
resolve it for 0.9.0

4. Add the instruction to the private key and credentials
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/issues/3800, we will resolve it 
for 0.9.0

5. Renaming the package from whisk.* into org.apache.openwhisk.* 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/issues/3797 We need to defer it 
for next release, since all the repos depend on the naming convention so far. 
It takes great effort and collaboration, because it affects existing offerings. 

Regarding how many repositories we are going to release, we decided to continue 
with the release of 13 repositories, after my discussions with many 
OpenWhiskers. All the 13 repos by far are great intelligent assets, which have 
been evolving during the past months or even years. They all play important 
roles to make openwhisk complete, and users/contributors are longing to see 
them distributed. Contributors in OpenWhisk have done great work to all of them 
and we are confident with source code, and there will be more openwhisk 
repositories in future, as openwhisk attracts more contributors with good 
ideas. Based on my experiences with cooperating with people from Apache, I also 
believe that Apache members are passionate about technologies and desire to try 
out new projects, by fulfilling their duties with their evaluations and 
feedback.

Except the issues we have above, does anyone have any other concerns we need to 
take into account for the 0.9.0 release? If so, this is the chance to raise it; 
if not, we shall proceed the, after we made the minor fixes to the above listed 
issues.

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

-"Matt Rutkowski"  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: "Matt Rutkowski" 
Date: 06/21/2018 12:08PM
Cc: "Vincent S Hou" 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Bertrand,

>>>> ...Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build 
dependent
>>>> on the other parts as I mentioned earlier...

>>Right, it if cannot be built that's a problem - but if you say that I
>>suppose there's a build order that must be followed?

>>If that's correct those overall build instructions should be included
>>with the set of release archives.

As required, the main openwhisk README (and supporting) docs include 
instructions on how to build (and tooling that makes it quite easy).  We 
can open an issue to better document suggest manual build order.  Will 
talk to Vincent to see if he has time today as I am leaving soon to return 
Monday.

-mr

From:   Bertrand Delacretaz 
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:   06/21/2018 11:00 AM
Subject:Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Matt,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:27 PM Matt Rutkowski  
wrote:
> ...Are you saying you believe the Incubator PMC
> will fail us strictly due to having 13 tgz/tar files vs. 1 for a first
> release?...

I don't know (and someone's welcome to ask on the
general@incubator.a.o list to find out), but that looks unusual to me,
and more work for reviewers that might need to unpack 13 archives to
find similar issues in several of them.

That's why I focused on just one archive here, and found a few
interesting things already - the other 12 archives have not been
useful for my initial review.

> ...Are you saying they need to be "eased into the concept" because we 
will
> have 13 (now and more eventually); at some point the board will be 
exposed
> to multiples...

No, it's just a practical question and fairness for the reviewers,
where multiple archives might not say much more than one about the
readiness of OpenWhisk to make Apache Releases.

The ASF Board is not involved with releases, it's just the Incubator
PMC in this case, for a podling.

> ...Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build 
dependent
> on the other parts as I mentioned earlier...

Right, it if cannot be built that's a problem - b

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread Michele Sciabarra

+1 for 0.9.0-incubating
time to write a book on it :)

-- 
  Michele Sciabarra
  openwh...@sciabarra.com

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, at 8:24 PM, James Thomas wrote:
> +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.
> 
> Good work on this everyone. Time to get the  ready
> 
> On 21 June 2018 at 17:35, Priti Desai  wrote:
> 
> > +1 for the release, its been a lot of hard work from the team, great job
> > Matt, Vincent, and Daisy!
> >
> > Cheers
> > Priti
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> James Thomas

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread James Thomas

+1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating.

Good work on this everyone. Time to get the  ready

On 21 June 2018 at 17:35, Priti Desai  wrote:

> +1 for the release, its been a lot of hard work from the team, great job
> Matt, Vincent, and Daisy!
>
> Cheers
> Priti
>
>


-- 
Regards,
James Thomas

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread Priti Desai

+1 for the release, its been a lot of hard work from the team, great job 
Matt, Vincent, and Daisy!

Cheers
Priti

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Bertrand,

>>>> ...Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build 
dependent
>>>> on the other parts as I mentioned earlier...

>>Right, it if cannot be built that's a problem - but if you say that I
>>suppose there's a build order that must be followed?

>>If that's correct those overall build instructions should be included
>>with the set of release archives.

As required, the main openwhisk README (and supporting) docs include 
instructions on how to build (and tooling that makes it quite easy).  We 
can open an issue to better document suggest manual build order.  Will 
talk to Vincent to see if he has time today as I am leaving soon to return 
Monday.

-mr

From:   Bertrand Delacretaz 
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:   06/21/2018 11:00 AM
Subject:    Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Matt,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:27 PM Matt Rutkowski  
wrote:
> ...Are you saying you believe the Incubator PMC
> will fail us strictly due to having 13 tgz/tar files vs. 1 for a first
> release?...

I don't know (and someone's welcome to ask on the
general@incubator.a.o list to find out), but that looks unusual to me,
and more work for reviewers that might need to unpack 13 archives to
find similar issues in several of them.

That's why I focused on just one archive here, and found a few
interesting things already - the other 12 archives have not been
useful for my initial review.

> ...Are you saying they need to be "eased into the concept" because we 
will
> have 13 (now and more eventually); at some point the board will be 
exposed
> to multiples...

No, it's just a practical question and fairness for the reviewers,
where multiple archives might not say much more than one about the
readiness of OpenWhisk to make Apache Releases.

The ASF Board is not involved with releases, it's just the Incubator
PMC in this case, for a podling.

> ...Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build 
dependent
> on the other parts as I mentioned earlier...

Right, it if cannot be built that's a problem - but if you say that I
suppose there's a build order that must be followed?

If that's correct those overall build instructions should be included
with the set of release archives.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Matt,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:27 PM Matt Rutkowski  wrote:
> ...Are you saying you believe the Incubator PMC
> will fail us strictly due to having 13 tgz/tar files vs. 1 for a first
> release?...

I don't know (and someone's welcome to ask on the
general@incubator.a.o list to find out), but that looks unusual to me,
and more work for reviewers that might need to unpack 13 archives to
find similar issues in several of them.

That's why I focused on just one archive here, and found a few
interesting things already - the other 12 archives have not been
useful for my initial review.

> ...Are you saying they need to be "eased into the concept" because we will
> have 13 (now and more eventually); at some point the board will be exposed
> to multiples...

No, it's just a practical question and fairness for the reviewers,
where multiple archives might not say much more than one about the
readiness of OpenWhisk to make Apache Releases.

The ASF Board is not involved with releases, it's just the Incubator
PMC in this case, for a podling.

> ...Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build dependent
> on the other parts as I mentioned earlier...

Right, it if cannot be built that's a problem - but if you say that I
suppose there's a build order that must be followed?

If that's correct those overall build instructions should be included
with the set of release archives.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread Rodric Rabbah

FWIW --- IF we had to pick one repo, the one with the fewest dependences
that could be standalone, as a first release would the go sdk.

Then wskdeploy?

The runtimes and CLI are tricky there after because why self contained, for
the most part, do share common bits with openwhisk repo for the tests.

-r

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:27 AM Matt Rutkowski  wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
>
> I am not sure I understand.  Are you saying you believe the Incubator PMC
> will fail us strictly due to having 13 tgz/tar files vs. 1 for a first
> release?  Again, it makes no sense to me as it is strictly a choice of
> logical separation (representative of our architectural parts) and
> packaging?   Surely you see that can and it is technically not hard to
> explain.
>
> Are you saying they need to be "eased into the concept" because we will
> have 13 (now and more eventually); at some point the board will be exposed
> to multiples.
>
> Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build dependent
> on the other parts as I mentioned earlier.
>
> Kind regards,
> Matt
>
>
>
>
> From:   Bertrand Delacretaz 
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date:   06/21/2018 10:17 AM
> Subject:Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating
>
>
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:03 PM Matt Rutkowski 
> wrote:
> > ...For now, I am quite happy with releasing all together
>
> We can try, but as I said I'm not sure if the Incubator PMC will
> accept this for a first release.
>
> Even releasing a single module that's not usable by itself is progress
> w.r.t. the incubation process, where it's the process and legal
> aspects that count, for initial incubating releases, more than the
> technical viability of the product. There's even no obligation to
> "advertise" those releases, considering them training releases is
> fine.
>
> But we can try if that's what the majority of the PPMC wants and if
> the other mentors do not disagree.
>
> > ...BTW, I am more than happy to formalize and represent this position
> (along with the
> > history) to make it clear for others during the review process
>
> I think it's easy to understand the technical justification for
> releasing multiple modules together - my angle is just the "incubation
> training" one.
>
> -Bertrand
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Bertrand,

I am not sure I understand.  Are you saying you believe the Incubator PMC 
will fail us strictly due to having 13 tgz/tar files vs. 1 for a first 
release?  Again, it makes no sense to me as it is strictly a choice of 
logical separation (representative of our architectural parts) and 
packaging?   Surely you see that can and it is technically not hard to 
explain.

Are you saying they need to be "eased into the concept" because we will 
have 13 (now and more eventually); at some point the board will be exposed 
to multiples.

Plus a single repo. source is not usable by itself and its build dependent 
on the other parts as I mentioned earlier.

Kind regards,
Matt 

From:   Bertrand Delacretaz 
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:   06/21/2018 10:17 AM
Subject:    Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Matt,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:03 PM Matt Rutkowski  
wrote:
> ...For now, I am quite happy with releasing all together

We can try, but as I said I'm not sure if the Incubator PMC will
accept this for a first release.

Even releasing a single module that's not usable by itself is progress
w.r.t. the incubation process, where it's the process and legal
aspects that count, for initial incubating releases, more than the
technical viability of the product. There's even no obligation to
"advertise" those releases, considering them training releases is
fine.

But we can try if that's what the majority of the PPMC wants and if
the other mentors do not disagree.

> ...BTW, I am more than happy to formalize and represent this position 
(along with the
> history) to make it clear for others during the review process

I think it's easy to understand the technical justification for
releasing multiple modules together - my angle is just the "incubation
training" one.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Matt,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:03 PM Matt Rutkowski  wrote:
> ...For now, I am quite happy with releasing all together

We can try, but as I said I'm not sure if the Incubator PMC will
accept this for a first release.

Even releasing a single module that's not usable by itself is progress
w.r.t. the incubation process, where it's the process and legal
aspects that count, for initial incubating releases, more than the
technical viability of the product. There's even no obligation to
"advertise" those releases, considering them training releases is
fine.

But we can try if that's what the majority of the PPMC wants and if
the other mentors do not disagree.

> ...BTW, I am more than happy to formalize and represent this position (along 
> with the
> history) to make it clear for others during the review process

I think it's easy to understand the technical justification for
releasing multiple modules together - my angle is just the "incubation
training" one.

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Bertrand,

I do not believe we should (or can) release just one repo. at this time (my 
vote is continue with current artifact granularity). In the future, we can work 
to enable individual repo. release over time as well (describe via 
process/tools), but most of these repos. must be released together for 
compatibility.  IMO, we made a decision early in the project to separate 
component parts of our architecture into individual repos. for many good, well 
considered reasons.  

Primarily the project represents a complex PaaS platform with many moving parts 
(both client and server) with different requirements for skills and languages, 
but all interdependent on each other by inherent versioning of APIs and Service 
Provider Interfaces, as well as runtime conventions.  In reality we cannot 
release just even the main OW repo. since it's build is dependent on the other 
repos.' images. It is disingenuous at best IMO.

Releasing individual repos. without clear documentation of these still changing 
surfaces really does not work.  It is something the community well knows, has 
been discussed several times, is documented as a future "goal".

For now, I am quite happy with releasing all together. I look at it this way... 
we could simply TAR all the repos. into one big TAR (to no real benefit other 
than to get 1 file).  Code is code, packaging is packaging; in the end that all 
it really represents.

BTW, I am more than happy to formalize and represent this position (along with 
the history) to make it clear for others during the review process.

/soapbox off
-MR

On 2018/06/21 13:08:23, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote: 
> Hi Vincent,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:53 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> > ...Does it mean we can try to release one of the 13 modules, like 
> > openwhisk, or openwhisk-cli, or consolidate
> > all the 13 projects into one for release?...
> 
> The former, I would say?
> 
> It's probably more convenient for your users and w.r.t release cycles?
> 
> For Apache Sling, as an example which is extremely modular, we do lots
> of individual module releases all the time, and about once a year do a
> "big bang" release that includes all core module.
> 
> A model like that might be good for OpenWhisk, but as this stage as
> mentioned for a first "training release" it's probably best to stick
> to one typical module to refine the process.
> 
> ...
> > * The key can be accessed at 
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS. You missed 
> > "dev/" in your link...
> 
> Ah ok, sorry!  Got it now.
> 
> > ...* So far the header is not verified with RAT. We have a unitiy repo call
> > openwhisk-utility(https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities) 
> > to scan all the code. RAT has issues,
> > since I have never got it running correctly in openwhisk. The Travis build 
> > uses this openwhisk-utility to verify the
> > headers for every incoming commit
> 
> Ok. The "how to I run the utility to verify the license headers"
> question should be answerable with a URL, maybe the docs of that
> utility?
> People will need to be able to run it standalone to do their own 
> verifications.
> 
> > * RSA private key should have some instructions. We will work on it...
> 
> Great
> 
> > * We do not release binary this time...
> 
> Yes - I was checking for binaries that might have been leftover, saw
> none and that's good!
> 
> > * We will look at the .scala code files...
> 
> Ok. If the package name change is too disruptive it can be postponed
> for later during incubation, but that needs to be tracked.
> 
> > * For README, let me make the build instruction more clear...
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I suppose this means this vote is canceled until you have a new
> release candidate?
> 
> -Bertrand
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread Carlos Santana

Thanks Betrand,

You saved me time today :yay: !

Yeah the renaming of the scala packages, should not be a show stopper but
we should open an issue in the release repo to track.
Also needs some coordination for own modules that depends on it and
downstreams.
We can release 0.9.0, and after release we can published to maven and repos
and downtreams that depend on it we can pin in gradle to pull 0.9.0 until
the package get's rename to org.apache.openwhisk.*

I agree with Bertrand about license check,
There should be a simple way that anyone outside the openwhisk community
can download the tgz, extract and follow simple steps to run the license
scanner against the content of the tgz

-cs




On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:33 AM Rodric Rabbah  wrote:

> Thanks Bertrand for the suggestion to modularize the release - I do think
> that makes a lot of sense as well.
>
> The way we're vectoring is for the runtimes to be independent and can have
> their own lifecycle.
> Similarly the CLI and related tooling.
> In the long run this will make a lot of sense.
>
>
> -r
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:53 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> > > ...Does it mean we can try to release one of the 13 modules, like
> > openwhisk, or openwhisk-cli, or consolidate
> > > all the 13 projects into one for release?...
> >
> > The former, I would say?
> >
> > It's probably more convenient for your users and w.r.t release cycles?
> >
> > For Apache Sling, as an example which is extremely modular, we do lots
> > of individual module releases all the time, and about once a year do a
> > "big bang" release that includes all core module.
> >
> > A model like that might be good for OpenWhisk, but as this stage as
> > mentioned for a first "training release" it's probably best to stick
> > to one typical module to refine the process.
> >
> > ...
> > > * The key can be accessed at https://dist.apache.org/repos/
> > dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS. You missed "dev/" in your link...
> >
> > Ah ok, sorry!  Got it now.
> >
> > > ...* So far the header is not verified with RAT. We have a unitiy repo
> > call
> > > openwhisk-utility(https://github.com/apache/incubator-
> > openwhisk-utilities) to scan all the code. RAT has issues,
> > > since I have never got it running correctly in openwhisk. The Travis
> > build uses this openwhisk-utility to verify the
> > > headers for every incoming commit
> >
> > Ok. The "how to I run the utility to verify the license headers"
> > question should be answerable with a URL, maybe the docs of that
> > utility?
> > People will need to be able to run it standalone to do their own
> > verifications.
> >
> > > * RSA private key should have some instructions. We will work on it...
> >
> > Great
> >
> > > * We do not release binary this time...
> >
> > Yes - I was checking for binaries that might have been leftover, saw
> > none and that's good!
> >
> > > * We will look at the .scala code files...
> >
> > Ok. If the package name change is too disruptive it can be postponed
> > for later during incubation, but that needs to be tracked.
> >
> > > * For README, let me make the build instruction more clear...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > I suppose this means this vote is canceled until you have a new
> > release candidate?
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Bertrand,

As you noted, the release process uses the Apache RAT to scan all the 
built TAR files and our own Scancode utility scans files at "build time" 
for both PR and release (master or named release) builds.

We have endeavored to document our use of these scanning utilities within 
the context of our release process  here:
- "License Compliance": 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/blob/master/docs/license_compliance.md

On this page, we describe our usage of both RAT and Scancode as well as 
detailing, in great depth, all file inclusions down to every file type we 
have across all repos.

In addition (for convenience and to prove thoroughness), we have 
identified all known exclusions (all in accordance with Apache policy) by 
repo. here:
- 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/blob/master/docs/license_exclusions.md

and you surmised correctly that the Scancode utility usage is documented 
where it lives in the incubator-openwhisk-utility repo. here:
- description/install/build/run basics: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities
- full usage: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities/blob/master/scancode/README.md

Fee free to ask any question about licenses and scanning as this has been 
my life for the last many months...

Kind regards,
Matt 

From:   Bertrand Delacretaz 
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:   06/21/2018 08:08 AM
Subject:    Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Vincent,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:53 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> ...Does it mean we can try to release one of the 13 modules, like 
openwhisk, or openwhisk-cli, or consolidate
> all the 13 projects into one for release?...

The former, I would say?

It's probably more convenient for your users and w.r.t release cycles?

For Apache Sling, as an example which is extremely modular, we do lots
of individual module releases all the time, and about once a year do a
"big bang" release that includes all core module.

A model like that might be good for OpenWhisk, but as this stage as
mentioned for a first "training release" it's probably best to stick
to one typical module to refine the process.

...
> * The key can be accessed at 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS
. You missed "dev/" in your link...

Ah ok, sorry!  Got it now.

> ...* So far the header is not verified with RAT. We have a unitiy repo 
call
> openwhisk-utility(
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities
) to scan all the code. RAT has issues,
> since I have never got it running correctly in openwhisk. The Travis 
build uses this openwhisk-utility to verify the
> headers for every incoming commit

Ok. The "how to I run the utility to verify the license headers"
question should be answerable with a URL, maybe the docs of that
utility?
People will need to be able to run it standalone to do their own 
verifications.

> * RSA private key should have some instructions. We will work on it...

Great

> * We do not release binary this time...

Yes - I was checking for binaries that might have been leftover, saw
none and that's good!

> * We will look at the .scala code files...

Ok. If the package name change is too disruptive it can be postponed
for later during incubation, but that needs to be tracked.

> * For README, let me make the build instruction more clear...

Thanks!

I suppose this means this vote is canceled until you have a new
release candidate?

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread Rodric Rabbah

Thanks Bertrand for the suggestion to modularize the release - I do think
that makes a lot of sense as well.

The way we're vectoring is for the runtimes to be independent and can have
their own lifecycle.
Similarly the CLI and related tooling.
In the long run this will make a lot of sense.


-r


On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:53 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> > ...Does it mean we can try to release one of the 13 modules, like
> openwhisk, or openwhisk-cli, or consolidate
> > all the 13 projects into one for release?...
>
> The former, I would say?
>
> It's probably more convenient for your users and w.r.t release cycles?
>
> For Apache Sling, as an example which is extremely modular, we do lots
> of individual module releases all the time, and about once a year do a
> "big bang" release that includes all core module.
>
> A model like that might be good for OpenWhisk, but as this stage as
> mentioned for a first "training release" it's probably best to stick
> to one typical module to refine the process.
>
> ...
> > * The key can be accessed at https://dist.apache.org/repos/
> dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS. You missed "dev/" in your link...
>
> Ah ok, sorry!  Got it now.
>
> > ...* So far the header is not verified with RAT. We have a unitiy repo
> call
> > openwhisk-utility(https://github.com/apache/incubator-
> openwhisk-utilities) to scan all the code. RAT has issues,
> > since I have never got it running correctly in openwhisk. The Travis
> build uses this openwhisk-utility to verify the
> > headers for every incoming commit
>
> Ok. The "how to I run the utility to verify the license headers"
> question should be answerable with a URL, maybe the docs of that
> utility?
> People will need to be able to run it standalone to do their own
> verifications.
>
> > * RSA private key should have some instructions. We will work on it...
>
> Great
>
> > * We do not release binary this time...
>
> Yes - I was checking for binaries that might have been leftover, saw
> none and that's good!
>
> > * We will look at the .scala code files...
>
> Ok. If the package name change is too disruptive it can be postponed
> for later during incubation, but that needs to be tracked.
>
> > * For README, let me make the build instruction more clear...
>
> Thanks!
>
> I suppose this means this vote is canceled until you have a new
> release candidate?
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Vincent,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:53 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> ...Does it mean we can try to release one of the 13 modules, like openwhisk, 
> or openwhisk-cli, or consolidate
> all the 13 projects into one for release?...

The former, I would say?

It's probably more convenient for your users and w.r.t release cycles?

For Apache Sling, as an example which is extremely modular, we do lots
of individual module releases all the time, and about once a year do a
"big bang" release that includes all core module.

A model like that might be good for OpenWhisk, but as this stage as
mentioned for a first "training release" it's probably best to stick
to one typical module to refine the process.

...
> * The key can be accessed at 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS. You missed 
> "dev/" in your link...

Ah ok, sorry!  Got it now.

> ...* So far the header is not verified with RAT. We have a unitiy repo call
> openwhisk-utility(https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities) to 
> scan all the code. RAT has issues,
> since I have never got it running correctly in openwhisk. The Travis build 
> uses this openwhisk-utility to verify the
> headers for every incoming commit

Ok. The "how to I run the utility to verify the license headers"
question should be answerable with a URL, maybe the docs of that
utility?
People will need to be able to run it standalone to do their own verifications.

> * RSA private key should have some instructions. We will work on it...

Great

> * We do not release binary this time...

Yes - I was checking for binaries that might have been leftover, saw
none and that's good!

> * We will look at the .scala code files...

Ok. If the package name change is too disruptive it can be postponed
for later during incubation, but that needs to be tracked.

> * For README, let me make the build instruction more clear...

Thanks!

I suppose this means this vote is canceled until you have a new
release candidate?

-Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

2018-06-21 Thread Vincent S Hou

Hi Bertrand,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Let me clarify what you mean by one module:
Does it mean we can try to release one of the 13 modules, like openwhisk, or 
openwhisk-cli, or consolidate all the 13 projects into one for release?

* The key can be accessed at 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS. You missed 
"dev/" in your link.
* So far the header is not verified with RAT. We have a unitiy repo call 
openwhisk-utility(https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-utilities) to 
scan all the code. RAT has issues, since I have never got it running correctly 
in openwhisk. The Travis build uses this openwhisk-utility to verify the 
headers for every incoming commit.
* RSA private key should have some instructions. We will work on it.
* We do not release binary this time.
* We will look at the .scala code files.
* For README, let me make the build instruction more clear.


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

-Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote: -
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
From: Bertrand Delacretaz 
Date: 06/21/2018 07:04AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Hi Vincent,

Thanks for your work in preparing this release!

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:16 PM Vincent S Hou  wrote:
> ...There are totally 13 OpenWhisk projects within this release

As mentioned earlier I don't think it is a good idea to release
multiple modules in your first Incubator release: if a single module
has a problem the whole release will fail, and it's not convenient for
Incubator PMC reviewers (who might not be very familiar with your
code) to review multiple modules in one go. I'm not sure if the
Incubator PMC would even accept voting on multiple artifacts with a
single vote.

I recommend releasing one module first, to validate the release voting
process and to get feedback that's probably applicable for other
modules as well.

With this in mind I have just looked at
openwhisk-0.9.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz so far, here are my
comments:

1) The digests match.

2) The 22CC20CC key used to sign the release is not available at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS
(that file doesn't exist) nor at
https://people.apache.org/keys/group/openwhisk.asc

3) I don't find build instructions in the README (which is also at
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk), for convenience

I'm not very familiar with gradle, tried this:

./gradlew tasks
  doesn't show anything specific to OpenWhisk IIUC

./gradlew tasks --all
  shows many tasks, it's unclear where to start

I usually expect to see clear build instructions in such a release
archive, but maybe I missed something.

4) LICENSE, DISCLAIMER, NOTICE look good to me

5) The .scala code files are in whisk.* packages, that should be
org.apache.openwhisk.* for an Apache project.

6) I suppose you used Apache Rat to validate the license headers, I
don't see instructions on how to run it to make those checks myself.

7) There's an RSA private key in the source archive, if it's for
testing purposes it should be clearly identified as such (ideally
named test- something) to reassure people that it's not problematic to
distribute it (./ansible/roles/nginx/files/openwhisk-server-key.pem).

8) I don't see binary files in the release archive which is good,
except for ./gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar which I think is
acceptable - but its digest should be kept track of, maybe in a jira
ticket so people can validate it if they want.

Those are the types of comments that you might get when the Incubator
PMC validates releases, I suppose many of them apply to multiple
projects so it's  easier to start with just one module, fix or clarify
these things and then do the rest.

-Bertrand (with my incubation mentor hat on)

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating