Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Composer (v0.11.0-incubating, rc2)

+1 to release Apache OpenWhisk Composer (v0.11.0-incubating, rc2). Verified with help from rcverify. Note this release is signed by Vincent ;) Release verification checklist for reference: [x] Download links are valid. [x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. [x] DISCLAIMER is

[VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Composer (v0.11.0-incubating, rc2)

Hi, This is a call to vote on releasing version 0.11.0-incubating release candidate rc2 of the following 1 project modules with artifacts built from the Git repositories and commit IDs listed below. * OpenWhisk Composer: 6bc3405280176e55618853ee8eae284c6e603806

Re: New architecture proposal

Hi Dominic, Thanks for sharing your ideas. IIUC (and pls keep me honest), the goal of the new design is to improve activation performance. I personally love this; performance is a critical non-functional feature of any FaaS system. There’s something I’d like to call out: the management of

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Runtimes (v1.13.0-incubating, rc1)

Matt Rutkowski wrote on 04/04/2019 11:42:38 AM: > > > Truth be told, I was "on the fence" with regard to the LICENSE in > the Go runtime, but weighed on the side of release; how hard would > it be to re-issue the Go runtime release? > I think 5 minutes of work to respin a new release candidate

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Runtimes (v1.13.0-incubating, rc1)

I will cut a new RC for the go runtime after the license is fixed and do a new VOTE separately just for that. With all the automation, it's ... gasp... easy. -r On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:42 AM Matt Rutkowski wrote: > > Truth be told, I was "on the fence" with regard to the LICENSE in the Go >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Runtimes (v1.13.0-incubating, rc1)

Truth be told, I was "on the fence" with regard to the LICENSE in the Go runtime, but weighed on the side of release; how hard would it be to re-issue the Go runtime release? On 2019/04/04 15:16:25, "David P Grove" wrote: > > I ran the rcverify.sh script on all artifacts and inspected all

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Runtimes (v1.13.0-incubating, rc1)

[X] +1 Approve the release [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... Also used the rcverify tool and found the same "false positives" that Carlos indicated. In regard to the 3 false positives... - incubator-openwhisk-runtime-go-1.13.0-incubating/LICENSE.txt indeed copied some

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Runtimes (v1.13.0-incubating, rc1)

I ran the rcverify.sh script on all artifacts and inspected all reported failures. I am +1 to release the following 8 runtimes: openwhisk-runtime-docker 'OpenWhisk Runtime Docker' 1.13.0-incubating openwhisk-runtime-dotnet 'OpenWhisk Runtime Dotnet' 1.13.0-incubating openwhisk-runtime-java

Re: New architecture proposal

Dominic Kim wrote on 04/04/2019 04:37:19 AM: > > I have proposed a new architecture. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENWHISK/New+architecture +proposal > > It includes many controversial agendas and breaking changes. > So I would like to form a general consensus on them. > Hi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Runtimes (v1.13.0-incubating, rc1)

[X] +1 Approve the release [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... Release verification checklist for reference: [X] Download links are valid. [X] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. [X] DISCLAIMER is included. [X] Source code artifacts have correct names matching

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Runtimes (v1.13.0-incubating, rc1)

unsubscribe > On Apr 4, 2019, at 1:37 AM, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > Hmm I added those licenses to comply with the Testify requirements and the > filetype. > > THe filetype library is now gone. > > I do not remember why added the IBM license... But I have not used any IBM > code as far as

New architecture proposal

Hi. I have proposed a new architecture. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENWHISK/New+architecture+proposal It includes many controversial agendas and breaking changes. So I would like to form a general consensus on them. I'd really appreciate if you share any feedbacks about them.

[slack-digest] [2019-04-03] #random

2019-04-03 07:53:51 UTC - James Thomas: great cover animal! heart : Michele Sciabarra https://openwhisk-team.slack.com/archives/C3UDXSFA6/p1554278031048000 2019-04-03 08:50:07 UTC - Rodric Rabbah:

[slack-digest] [2019-04-03] #apigateway

2019-04-03 14:53:20 UTC - Matt Rutkowski: GET READY! ~10 minutes until the Apache OpenWhisk Tech. Interchange project meeting, https://openwhisk-team.slack.com/archives/C3TP33Y2U/p155430320200

[slack-digest] [2019-04-03] #kubernetes

2019-04-03 14:32:20 UTC - James Thomas: https://openwhisk-team.slack.com/archives/C4J3R7JFL/p155430194400 2019-04-03 14:50:58 UTC - Matt Rutkowski: GET READY! ~10 minutes until the Apache OpenWhisk Tech.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Runtimes (v1.13.0-incubating, rc1)

Hi, The LICENSE.txt file for the Go runtime is different from every other one. Specifically it has an IBM copyright [1] and a MIT licences block at the bottom [2]. Is this correct? Regards, Rob [1]: