Re: aurora-packaging for 0.13

2016-06-14 Thread Mauricio Garavaglia
sounds good, thanks!

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Erb, Stephan <stephan@blue-yonder.com>
wrote:

> I am way behind my plan for the 0.13 binaries. There is one pending patch
> I'd like to land before building and publishing the 0.13er binaries for a
> vote [1].
>
> Once the 0.13 is out, I'd look into 0.14.
>
> If you are interested and eager, you could speed this up by already
> preparing a review request that would bring
> https://github.com/apache/aurora-packaging into a state ready for 0.14.0.
> I believe the only major necessary changes will be to bump the various
> Aurora and Mesos version string scattered throughout the repository.
>
> [1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/48606/
> 
> From: Mauricio Garavaglia <mauriciogaravag...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 00:01
> To: dev@aurora.apache.org
> Subject: Re: aurora-packaging for 0.13
>
> Hi!
> Given that we have aurora 0.14 now, can you add the proper branches/tags to
> aurora-packaging to build it? Thanks!
>
> Mauricio
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Erb, Stephan <stephan@blue-yonder.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mauricio,
> >
> > the master of https://github.com/apache/aurora-packaging should be ready
> > to use if you want to build 0.13 binaries.
> >
> > There are some minor cleanups needed before we can do an official release
> > though. I will try to look into this until next week.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Stephan
> > ________
> > From: Mauricio Garavaglia <mauriciogaravag...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 22:19
> > To: dev@aurora.apache.org
> > Subject: aurora-packaging for 0.13
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Looks like the aurora-packaging repo (
> > https://github.com/apache/aurora-packaging) doesn't include a branch for
> > the 0.13.x release, as it happened for previous releases, and the changes
> > got merged right into master. Could at least consider tagging for the
> > particular version intented to be released? Thanks
> >
> > Mauricio
> >
>


Re: aurora-packaging for 0.13

2016-06-14 Thread Erb, Stephan
I am way behind my plan for the 0.13 binaries. There is one pending patch I'd 
like to land before building and publishing the 0.13er binaries for a vote [1].

Once the 0.13 is out, I'd look into 0.14. 

If you are interested and eager, you could speed this up by already preparing a 
review request that would bring https://github.com/apache/aurora-packaging into 
a state ready for 0.14.0. I believe the only major necessary changes will be to 
bump the various Aurora and Mesos version string scattered throughout the 
repository.

[1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/48606/

From: Mauricio Garavaglia <mauriciogaravag...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 00:01
To: dev@aurora.apache.org
Subject: Re: aurora-packaging for 0.13

Hi!
Given that we have aurora 0.14 now, can you add the proper branches/tags to
aurora-packaging to build it? Thanks!

Mauricio

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Erb, Stephan <stephan@blue-yonder.com>
wrote:

> Hi Mauricio,
>
> the master of https://github.com/apache/aurora-packaging should be ready
> to use if you want to build 0.13 binaries.
>
> There are some minor cleanups needed before we can do an official release
> though. I will try to look into this until next week.
>
> Best Regards,
> Stephan
> 
> From: Mauricio Garavaglia <mauriciogaravag...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 22:19
> To: dev@aurora.apache.org
> Subject: aurora-packaging for 0.13
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Looks like the aurora-packaging repo (
> https://github.com/apache/aurora-packaging) doesn't include a branch for
> the 0.13.x release, as it happened for previous releases, and the changes
> got merged right into master. Could at least consider tagging for the
> particular version intented to be released? Thanks
>
> Mauricio
>


aurora-packaging for 0.13

2016-05-30 Thread Mauricio Garavaglia
Hi guys,

Looks like the aurora-packaging repo (
https://github.com/apache/aurora-packaging) doesn't include a branch for
the 0.13.x release, as it happened for previous releases, and the changes
got merged right into master. Could at least consider tagging for the
particular version intented to be released? Thanks

Mauricio