Re: 2.1 RM

I was thinking we should try to do a branch within the next 2 weeks? On 07/17/2017 03:28 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) wrote: Hey Hank- Many Thanks. Your RM baseball cap will be in the mail! I need to clean up the Release Management wiki page a bit for you. I’ll try to do that in the next f

Re: 2.1 RM

Thanks for volunteering, Hank! -- Thanks, Jeff On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Dave Neuman wrote: > Awesome, thanks Hank! > Now that we have a RM, I think we can start the conversation of when to > branch. For your first task as RM do you want to do that, or do you want > me to? > Thanks, > Da

Re: 2.1 RM

Awesome, thanks Hank! Now that we have a RM, I think we can start the conversation of when to branch. For your first task as RM do you want to do that, or do you want me to? Thanks, Dave On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Dewayne Richardson wrote: > When: Read · Mon, Jul 17. >

Re: 2.1 RM

When: Read · Mon, Jul 17. [image: Timyo expectation line] Yes, Hank thank you! On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hey Hank- > Many Thanks. Your RM baseball cap will be in

Re: 2.1 RM

Hey Hank- Many Thanks. Your RM baseball cap will be in the mail! I need to clean up the Release Management wiki page a bit for you. I’ll try to do that in the next few days. When’s the release branch get pulled? ;-) —Eric > On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > > Thanks, Ha

Re: 2.1 RM

Thanks, Hank..feel free to ping either me or Eric if anything is unclear in the release manager notes. -dan On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Hank Beatty wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I would like to volunteer. > > Thanks, > Hank > > On 07/05/2017 03:38 PM, Dave Neuman wrote: >> >> Hey All, >> Now

Re: 2.1 RM

Hi Dave, I would like to volunteer. Thanks, Hank On 07/05/2017 03:38 PM, Dave Neuman wrote: Hey All, Now that 2.0 has officially passed the project and IPMC vote (YAY!), it's time to start thinking about 2.1. I don't think we have identified a release manager for the 2.1 release yet, would an

Re: 2.1 RM

Any takers for 2.1 release manager? Dan and I will both make ourselves available to help out and the process is pretty well known at this point. —Eric > On Jul 6, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > > fwiw, 1.8.0 was lengthy because of the transition to Apache Incubator > -- we had a l

Re: 2.1 RM

fwiw, 1.8.0 was lengthy because of the transition to Apache Incubator -- we had a lot of work there. And 2.0.0 was as well because of the transition to postgres from mysql. 2.1.0 is expected to be significantly less trouble, and Eric and I have paved the way to make it so. We'll be availabl

2.1 RM

Hey All, Now that 2.0 has officially passed the project and IPMC vote (YAY!), it's time to start thinking about 2.1. I don't think we have identified a release manager for the 2.1 release yet, would anyone like to volunteer? Thanks, Dave