Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

I guess it's all about this bit of the license: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil which doesn't fit in legalese speak :) > On 24.11.2016 г., at 17:27, Svetoslav Neykov > wrote: > > Thanks for the heads up Richard. I'll check whether we are

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

Thanks for the heads up Richard. I'll check whether we are using it. Svet. > On 24.11.2016 г., at 16:56, Richard Downer wrote: > > Svet, > > There's a discussion going on elsewhere in ASF[1] about The JSON License[2] > - it was previously acceptable to ASF and was on the

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

That's some good news. Thanks for taking the time to look at this Andrea. I also have some progress to share. Today I was finally able to build Brooklyn with all tests passing (consistently at that) - on a branch that had all my recent PRs. Thanks Geoff for reviewing and merging all of them. I'm

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

Hi jclouds 1.9.3 is officially out -- see http://markmail.org/thread/qlapnppmfbilje7p for more details FYI @bostko already created this PR to bump jclouds version https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/457 I've generated the dependency:list from tag rel/jclouds-1.9.2 and

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

Hi there, I've released the Apache jclouds 1.9.3-rc1 (see [1] and [2] for more details) Please download, test and vote if you can! Andrea [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/42f3a91008890939cf344f35320f86bcc48f814119655d7347c9bcca@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E [2]:

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

+1 Andrea thanks Duncan Johnston-Watt CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation Twitter | @duncanjw Mobile | +44 777 190 2653 Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt On 17 November 2016 at 06:09, Aled Sage wrote: > +1, sounds great - thanks Andrea!

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

Good point about the homebrew package John. Thanks. Svet. > On 17.11.2016 г., at 17:53, John McCabe wrote: > > If there's a cli bump feel free to ping me about the homebrew release > process if necessary (it's pretty straight forward). > /John > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016,

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

If there's a cli bump feel free to ping me about the homebrew release process if necessary (it's pretty straight forward). /John On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, 15:19 Svetoslav Neykov, < svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > Nobody else stepped up so I guess that's me. I'll give it a go. > > Thanks.

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

+1, sounds great - thanks Andrea! There are some really import jclouds fixes in 1.9.3-SNAPSHOT (or 2.0.0) that we want, such as an OutOfMemoryError deploying to Softlayer [1]. It's worth hanging fire on Brooklyn 0.10.0 until we have a jclouds 1.9.3 release. In the meantime, we should still

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

I'm happy to volunteer for releasing an official jclouds 1.9.3 which may be the half-house solution here. wdyt? Andrea On 17 November 2016 at 08:25, Svetoslav Neykov < svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > This is going to be the first release that actually works in Karaf. The > docs

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

This is going to be the first release that actually works in Karaf. The docs are still assuming classic though so I suggest we keep recommending the classic distribution for 0.10.0. For next release let's plan on updating the docs and switching the recommended distribution to the Karaf based

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

i find swift too slow as a persistence endpoint in any case; it doesn't seem to be designed for the high-transaction rate we do. would losing swift hurt anyone? what are the other 2.0.0 changes/risks? the reason i push for this is that i've several times hit problems with brooklyn using

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

> I am happy to do the release again this time, but it would probably be wise > for somebody else to do it this time (with me providing whatever support is > needed - pairing etc.) I'd be happy to do the release with your help Richard. Svet. > On 16.11.2016 г., at 16:43, Richard Downer

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

Hi all, I favour towards a 0.11.0 for jclouds 2.0.0 soon, with 0.10.0 depending on jclouds 1.9.2. That allows users to have a stable release if they want to keep using 1.9.2 (e.g. if things break in 2.0.0, or they want to update more leisurely), but other users can get 2.0.0 once we've had

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

There have been a lot of improvements to jclouds since their 1.9.2 release. Unless there are big issues with using 2.0.0 that would get my vote. Best Alex On 16/11/2016 07:26, Andrea Turli wrote: +1 Svet, FYI I'm working on #409 and #415 now that jclouds 2.0 is official released.

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

Hi all, On 16 November 2016 at 11:22, Aled Sage wrote: > Hi all, > > It's far past time that we did a Brooklyn 0.10.0 release! I suggest we aim > for that soon. > Definitely agree - our last release was in April, so about seven months ago. We certainly wouldn't want to

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

+1 Svet, FYI I'm working on #409 and #415 now that jclouds 2.0 is official released. Andrea On 16 November 2016 at 12:33, Svetoslav Neykov < svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > Is including jclouds 2.0 too big of a change to consider, what do people > think? > If that's considered

Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

Is including jclouds 2.0 too big of a change to consider, what do people think? If that's considered too risky then I suggest following with a 0.11.0 not too long after, including jclouds 2.0. There's already work to get it running with Brooklyn at

Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0

Hi all, It's far past time that we did a Brooklyn 0.10.0 release! I suggest we aim for that soon. To that end, I suggest the following steps: * Deal with open PRs: o People shout out about any PRs you think are very important to be merged, before that release. o Review open