Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

Thanks Niall, GEODE-627 has been created and added to alpha1 scope. -Nitin From: Niall Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 11:36 PM To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues Hi, It looks like the gradle

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

Hi, It looks like the gradle build currently only produces a binary distribution, so will need to add a source distribution task. Niall On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > ICYMI, Nitin created a sprint dashboard for the 1.0.0-alpha1 release [1]. > I’ve added a few issues

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

@Anthony - I think your git flow statement was meant to be 'git flow feature track GEODE-608' for helping with RAT integration. I will take a look at the branch. As for the release numbering/naming discussion...I agree with 1.0.0-alpha1 for the upcoming release. --Mark On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

I just resolved GEODE-611. I did some initial work on GEODE-608 and it’s available on a feature branch [1]. Next step is to whittle down the excludes list and fix the failures in conjunction with GEODE-18. If someone wants to jump in on this work that would be great. Thanks to Niall and Niti

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

can these be marked 'in Progress'? Thanks, Nitin From: shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 9:40 PM To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org Cc: Anthony Baker Subject: Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues On Mon,

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Anilkumar Gingade wrote: > Thanks Nitin, > >>> My preference would be for dot releases instead of alpha1, apha2, beta, > RC, etc. Other thoughts? > +1 on this...If we are planning to do only one intermediate release before > 1.0 release (as mike was suggesting) we

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

i > before JIRA versions and tasks are created. Please review/ comment the > contents, if not done already. > > Thanks, > -Nitin > > From: Anilkumar Gingade > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:47 PM > To: dev@geode.in

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

-Nitin > ____________ > From: Anilkumar Gingade > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:47 PM > To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues > > Here is more detail on versioning > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanag

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

have frequent releases scrubbing these issues - at least a > few at a time. > > Roman/ others: any guidance here? > > Thanks, > Nitin > > > From: John Blum > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:07 AM > To: dev@geode.incuba

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

bbing these issues - at least a > few at a time. > > Roman/ others: any guidance here? > > Thanks, > Nitin > > > From: John Blum > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:07 AM > To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org > Subject: R

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

t; > ____________________ > From: John Blum > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:07 AM > To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues > > From my perspective, the (nearly) final, "releasable" POM is not needed &

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

___ From: John Blum Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:07 AM To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues >From my perspective, the (nearly) final, "releasable" POM is not needed until we hit RC1. By then, RCs should be relatively stable

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

>From my perspective, the (nearly) final, "releasable" POM is not needed until we hit RC1. By then, RCs should be relatively stable, having only simple changes (e.g. bug fixes) until final GA. Dependency additions, exclusions should be worked out before/by RC1. On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM,

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

Let’s get really specific when we talk about “release”. GEODE-27 clearly needs to be addressed prior to a 1.0.0 release. Currently we are discussing a 1.0.0-alpha1 release which will be followed soon after by *-alpha2, *-alpha3, etc. Do we need GEODE-27 in 1.0.0-alpha1 or can it be deferred t

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

Huge +1 for GEODE-27 before release. On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:13 AM, John Blum wrote: > Looking ahead, 1 issue, among others, that should warrant careful attention > before the 1.0.0 RC, is GEODE-27 > [0]. Getting the POM > file > correct is not

Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues

Looking ahead, 1 issue, among others, that should warrant careful attention before the 1.0.0 RC, is GEODE-27 [0]. Getting the POM file correct is not only important for Geode, but for developers building applications using Geode. Changing a POM fil