reviews needed for kube PRs

Hi, I'd appreciate it if someone with commit privileges could review and merge assuming they are acceptable Dan's 3 outstanding PRs against the kube repo. I'd like to maintain a reasonable rate of forward progress on this effort. thanks, --dave [1]

mechanism for publishing "official" docker images for openwhisk on kubernetes deployment?

Hi, I think it would be useful to publish some kubernetes specific docker images under the official openwhisk id on dockerhub. Primarily, these would be additional images that automate deployment tasks that are ansible-driven in the default system (creating kafka topics,

bump kafka version to 0.11.0?

Hi, I'd like to kick off a discussion of whether or not it is feasible to bump the kafka version used by OpenWhisk from 0.10.2.1 to 0.11.0. My immediate motivation is that there is a new admin client API ( org.apache.kafka.clients.admin.*) that supports programmatically

Re: possible approaches for dynamic assignment of invoker ids

Thanks for the feedback on the PR. I've revised it accordingly to support optional external assignment of invokerUUIDs and a stable mapping of UUIDs to assigned topics (invokerIds) to avoid churn on instance restarts. Please take another look if you are interested. --dave "David P Grove&

architecture of persistence for control plane

This was a topic of discussion on last week's technical interchange call that we decided should be moved to the dev list for further discussion. OpenWhisk uses multiple persistent data stores as part of its control plane. In addition to the main database for activations/actions/etc, we also rely

Re: Invoker activation queueing proposal

I can see the value in delaying the binding of activations to invokers when the system is loaded (can't execute "immediately" on its target invoker). Perhaps in ignorance, I am a little worried about the scalability of a single backlog topic. With a few hundred invokers, it seems like we'd be

Re: mechanism for publishing "official" docker images for openwhisk on kubernetes deployment?

u have a script in the kube that builds the image for example in > travis, and I can help on pushing the image > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:46 PM David P Grove <gro...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I think it would be usefu

kube-deploy: invoker deployment options

as mentioned on the tech interchange call earlier today, I opened an issue [1] for discussion about invoker deployment options. I'd like to clarify the options and then update the documentation and invoker.yml files accordingly to capture the discussion. thanks, --dave [1]

Re: Tech Interchange meeting tomorrow

Apologies for missing the interchange today; unavoidable personal conflict. A quick update on the openwhisk-deploy-kube sub-project. 1. Main focus in the last two weeks has been the Helm-based deployment. This is looking really solid. I'm working on a PR now to reorganize the

Re: Asynchronous communications (was: Please review our project's draft...)

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 06/06/2018 11:06:01 AM: > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:42 PM, David P Grove wrote: > > ...As Rodric said, properly organized channels and the use of threads help > > quite a bit... > > Do you have a few Slack URLs of good examples of tha

Re: Asynchronous communications (was: Please review our project's draft...)

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 06/06/2018 09:32:09 AM: > > ...Would it be worth adding the growth of the > > Slack community? We're ~800 members and it is really active > > With my incubation mentor hat on: enthusiasm for the the project is > fantastic news, but Apache projects should do

Re: Welcome new Committer Dave Grove

"Matt Rutkowski" wrote on 02/07/2018 10:17:17 AM: > > Based on his ongoing and valuable contributions to the project, the > OpenWhisk PPMC has elected Dave Grove as a Committer as well as PPMC > member and he has accepted the invitation. > > Please join me in welcoming him! >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

"Vincent S Hou" wrote on 06/21/2018 10:14:46 PM: > > Except the issues we have above, does anyone have any other concerns > we need to take into account for the 0.9.0 release? If so, this is > the chance to raise it; if not, we shall proceed the, after we made > the minor fixes to the above

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

"Markus Thömmes" wrote on 08/14/2018 10:06:49 AM: > > I just published a revision on the initial proposal I made. I still owe a > lot of sequence diagrams for the container distribution, sorry for taking > so long on that, I'm working on it. > > I did include a clear seperation of concerns

logging baby step -- worth pursuing?

Even if we think structured logging is the right eventual goal, it could take a while to get there (especially since it is changing functionality users may have grown accustomed to). However, for non-concurrent, non-blackbox runtimes we could make a small, not-user visible change, that could

Re: logging baby step -- worth pursuing?

Tyson Norris wrote on 08/15/2018 08:29:48 PM: > > FWIW This won’t help with concurrent activations since the logs from > concurrent activations will be interleaved (I think Dave was not > suggesting to use this for concurrent activations). It will only > help in the case where log processing is

Re: logging baby step -- worth pursuing?

This was a pretty simple change, so to make things concrete I have PRs with a prototype of the enabling change in the invoker [1] and a change to the nodejs runtime to emit the start sentinels [2]. If we go ahead with this design, here's an example from an action that writes one line to stdout

Re: [DISCUSSION]: Release plan of OpenWhisk 0.9.0 for all modules

"Vincent S Hou" wrote on 08/03/2018 11:42:56 AM: > > In order to keep you on the same page, I will discuss my release > plan for openwhisk 0.9.0 of all the 13 modules. > > As you know, we have already released OpenWhisk main module for > Version 0.9.0 in Apache for the first time. There are

Re: Kafka and Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

Great discussion; I'm not entirely convinced on part of this point though. > We need a work-stealing queue here to dynamically rebalance between the > Routers since the layer above the Routers has no idea about capacity and > (at least that's my assumption) schedules randomly. I agree we can't

Re: Proposal: Memory Aware Scheduling

Awesome! I'm working on the matching PR for the kube-deploy repo now. --dave Christian Bickel wrote on 08/23/2018 05:11:56 AM: > From: Christian Bickel > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Date: 08/23/2018 05:12 AM > Subject: Re: Proposal: Memory Aware Scheduling > > Hi everyone, > > The

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.8-incubating rc1: OpenWhisk wskdeploy

I vote: +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: wskdeploy 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 the current release. [X ] LICENSE and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating rc1: OpenWhisk catalog and apigateway

I vote: +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: apigateway +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: catalog 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

Re: Kafka and Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

Related to the random vs. smart routing discussion. A key unknown that influences the design is how much load we can drive through a single ContainerRouter. + If they are highly scalable (500 to 1000 containers per router), then even a fairly large OpenWhisk deployment could be running

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating rc1: OpenWhisk Deploy Kube

I vote: +1 Release as Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: openwhisk deploy kube I have verified all items on the checklist. --dave From: "Vincent S Hou" To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 08/23/2018 11:43 PM Subject:[VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating

Re: [DISCUSSION]: Proposing to use 1.12.0 as the version for all runtimes for the first-time release under Apache

Justin Halsall wrote on 08/27/2018 01:16:41 PM: > > I recently bumped into docker-compose always pulling in the latest > version of our containers but then failing because we had changed > some of the dependent variables in the docker image but forgot to do > so in our Docker Compose

Re: [DISCUSSION]: Proposing to use 1.12.0 as the version for all runtimes for the first-time release under Apache

"Vincent S Hou" wrote on 08/27/2018 12:39:01 PM: > > For convenience of release management in Apache. > * We can send one or two vote email(s) instead of 6. I realize that it will make the initial release more convenient. I don't think this is a compelling reason however. > * The download

Re: Prototyping for a future architecture

"Markus Thömmes" wrote on 08/23/2018 04:19:33 PM: > > Key point I want to make is: At some point we'll have to start to prototype > things out and see if our assumptions actually hold water. For example, my > assumption on a work-stealing backend is pretty much in the air. > > My proposal for

Re: [DISCUSSION]: Proposing to use 1.12.0 as the version for all runtimes for the first-time release under Apache

ogy, IBM Cloud Notes ID: Vincent S Hou/Raleigh/IBM, E-mail: s...@us.ibm.com, Phone: +1(919)254-7182 Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States -"David P Grove" wrote: - To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org From: "David P Grove" Date: 08/27/2018

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

[ Discussion about cluster singleton or not for the ContainerManager] fwiw, I believe for Kubernetes we do not need to attempt to deal with fault tolerance for the ContainerManager state ourselves. We can use labels to replicate all the persistent metadata for a container (prewarm or not, the

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

Rethinking the architecture to more fully exploit the capabilities of the underlying container orchestration platforms is pretty exciting. I think there are lots of interesting ideas to explore about how best to schedule the workload. As brought out in the architecture proposal [1], although it

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

Tyson Norris wrote on 07/20/2018 12:24:07 PM: > > On Logging, I think if you are considering enabling concurrent > activation processing, you will encounter that the only approach to > parsing logs to be associated with a specific activationId, is to > force the log output to be structured, and

Re: Add support for microkernels instead of containers

Did you remember to have your UkernelFactoryProvider extend ContainerFactoryProvider? For example, see KubernetesContainerFactory.scala. --dave From: "Farwell, James C" To: "dev@openwhisk.apache.org" Date: 07/19/2018 01:24 PM Subject:Re: Add support for microkernels instead

RE: Add support for microkernels instead of containers

but it's EVERYWHERE.) How can I modify SpiLoader to load a class that I determine? --James From: David P Grove [mailto:gro...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 11:41 AM To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Subject: Re: Add support for microkernels instead of containers Did you remember to

Re: How to do basic validation of custom OpenWhisk deployment

huge +1 from the deploy-kube side as well. A test suite that could run "externally" to the custom deploy with all properties passed by environment variables and no need for a whisk.properties file would make it very easy to define a testing Job that could be run on the cluster both in TravisCI

Re: Late podling report

Justin Mclean wrote on 09/06/2018 08:20:53 AM: > > Your report is late. It would be appreciated it if you can submit it > ASAP or if you are unable to submit a report please tell us (and > report next month instead) so the incubator report for this month > can be finalised. > Is anyone taking

Re: Late podling report

and add or guide. -- Carlos On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:35 AM David P Grove wrote: > > > Justin Mclean wrote on 09/06/2018 08:20:53 AM: > > > > Your report is late. It would be appreciated it if you can submit it > > ASAP or if you are unable to submit a report please t

Re: Invoker HA on Mesos

ate this state. > > This seems slightly awkward to me, so want to put it out for feedback. WDYT? > > > > On Mar 30, 2018, at 2:31 PM, David P Grove <gro...@us.ibm.com< > mailto:gro...@us.ibm.com>> wrote: > > > +1. I like this design. > > --dave > > Tys

Re: Invoker HA on Mesos

Tyson Norris wrote on 03/27/2018 06:25:59 PM: > > Do you have an example of the labels working? I guess the labels are > changed over time through the lifecycle of the container? > Apologies for brutally chopping the email chain; my mail client made a horrible hash of

Re: Invoker HA on Mesos

rigger this on demand > (e.g. when the standby pool becomes active, in our case, but I think > that is a minor detail). > > I can try it out; I will be out next week, but if you test any of > this in the meantime, let me know. > > Thanks > Tyson > > > > On Mar 30, 20

Re: Deploying OpenWhisk in Cloud: do we need Kubernetes?

Michele Sciabarra wrote on 03/28/2018 08:52:04 AM: > > Ok , so you are saying that Kubernetes make it easy to deploy OpenWhisk. > Then we should really provide an helm chart, I think. > Because it is the de-facto packaging for Kubernetes nowadays. > > And contribute it

Re: Any Topics/updates/demos of Tech. Interchange call this week?

Matt Rutkowski wrote on 03/26/2018 09:21:51 AM: > > Please respond to this thread with any topics we should put on the > agenda for this week's (i.e., Wed. March 28th) OW Tech Interchange call. > I'd like to get a few minutes to demo the travis-2-slack integration and

Re: Invoker HA on Mesos

Tyson Norris wrote on 03/27/2018 04:33:48 PM: > > We’ve been discussing how to handle mesos framework HA in the > Invoker, and I created a proposal on the wiki to discuss. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENWHISK/Clustered+Singleton

removal of non-Helm deployment from incubator-openwhisk-deploy-kube

I've just submitted a PR [1] to remove the "old style" non-Helm deployment from the deploy-kube project. The Helm-based deployment is (a) much simpler for users to deploy and (b) supports strictly more configuration options than the code being removed. We've been heading this direction for a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: main OpenWhisk module

+1 on the release. I verified that sources built on MacOS and checked the following items: [ X ] Download links are valid. [ X ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. [ X ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release. [ X ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for

towards the first apache release of openwhisk-composer

Now that the formal donation process for the composer code base is completed, we can start working towards the first formal release of composer from the Apache OpenWhisk. The motivation for a formal release is that we should have a formal Apache release to enable us to publish an

Re: towards the first apache release of openwhisk-composer

to wait for the IPMC vote to accept the code before I can start a release vote? thanks, -dave Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 11/09/2018 09:17:41 AM: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:33 PM David P Grove wrote: > > ...Now that the formal donation process for the

Re: towards the first apache release of openwhisk-composer

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 11/09/2018 09:17:41 AM: > From: Bertrand Delacretaz > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Date: 11/09/2018 09:18 AM > Subject: Re: towards the first apache release of openwhisk-composer > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:33 PM David P

Re: Logstore usage during `activation get`

"James W Dubee" wrote on 10/04/2018 11:45:34 AM: > From: "James W Dubee" > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Date: 10/04/2018 11:49 AM > Subject: Re: Logstore usage during `activation get` > > On a similar note, I don't think we should be storing activation > responses at all. > +1 Responses can

openwhisk-composer github

Apologies for the extra noise on the dev list; I missed changing the default email targets when I created the repo. I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17095 to correct this and do the rest of the GitHub configuration for the new repo. --dave

Bi-weekly Tech Interchange call tomorrow - add agenda topics here

Hi, Please add to this thread any agenda items you'd like to discuss at the Tech Interchange call tomorrow (October 10). Call details: Web Meeting: Tech Interchange (bi-weekly): - Day-Time: Wednesdays, 11AM EDT (Eastern US), 5PM CEST (Central Europe), 3PM UTC, 11PM CST (Beijing) - Zoom:

Re: Donation of ibm-functions/composer to Apache OpenWhisk

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 10/01/2018 08:02:34 AM: > > Please also create a ticket for the IP clearance then, listing the > names of the code authors and ideally including a link + digest to a > zip or tar archive of the code that's being donated. Or just attach > that archive to the ticket

Re: Bi-weekly Tech Interchange call tomorrow - add agenda topics here

"David P Grove" wrote on 10/09/2018 11:56:03 AM: > > Please add to this thread any agenda items you'd like to discuss at the > Tech Interchange call tomorrow (October 10). > > Call details: > PS. I'd like to put something on the agenda myself: I've been using

Re: Bi-weekly Tech Interchange call tomorrow - add agenda topics here

Dascalita Dragos wrote on 09/25/2018 12:35:28 PM: > Hi, > Please add to this thread any agenda items you'd like to discuss at the > Tech Interchange call tomorrow. If there is time, I'd like to give an update on the logging start-of-activation sentinel PR (

Donation of ibm-functions/composer to Apache OpenWhisk

IBM Research would like to donate the Composer code in ibm-functions/composer to the Apache OpenWhisk incubator project. The code is already open source under the Apache 2.0 license. Unless there are objections raised here on the dev list, I will plan to submit the infra tickets on Monday to

Re: What is the problem with the DockerContainerFactory in Kubernetes?

Michele Sciabarra wrote on 01/05/2019 09:05:28 AM: > > I am deploying OpenWhisk in Kubernetes using the helm charts, it > works, but I noticed the issues with the external event providers: > "the issue is that user action containers created by the > DockerContainerFactory are not configured to

Re: time for next OpenWhisk release wave?

but there's more machinery involved than I had anticipated. --dave > -r > > > On Jan 7, 2019, at 4:55 PM, David P Grove wrote: > > > > > > > > I would like to see us push out a consolidated next release in the near > > future (by end of January?). I'd a

Re: time for next OpenWhisk release wave?

Carlos Santana wrote on 01/23/2019 05:16:15 PM: > > Is it just a matter of creating a branch "1.13.0-incubating" on the repo > and adding a RELEASE.md file? > Maybe just a CHANGELOG file on master? I think for at least some of the runtime repos we more or less have this already. Other repos

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Michele Sciabarra wrote on 01/22/2019 09:55:03 AM: > > I already designed and implemented the feature as being "completely > optional". > > The point is if the community approves that runtimes may be used as > websocket servers (reusing the runtime machinery) deploying them in > Kubernetes (they

publishing developer-oriented binary artifacts

We have related conversations on mail threads [1] and [2]. I suggest we consolidate to a new thread to nail down a policy that we can document. I suspect it is pretty close to what we are operationally doing already, but we need to write it down. 1. Publishing on dockerhub. a. I suggest we

Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at init time

For the runtimes specifically, if it is technically feasible I think it would be better to organize around 1 git repo per language. That repo could contain multiple runtime variants with different degrees of maturity. Several of the runtime repos already contain multiple variants (nodejs, php,

Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at init time

t is a bit slower and it is stuck to go > 1.10, the second is faster but it is slower to initialize because the > executable is bigger.-- > Michele Sciabarra > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > - Original message - > From: David P Grove > To: dev@openwhisk.

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2018

I cloned the September report, updated the basic statistics, and did a very fast first path. It needs more work. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=97552251 --dave From: jmcl...@apache.org To: d...@openwhisk.incubator.apache.org Date: 11/29/2018 04:12

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2018

"Matt Rutkowski" wrote on 12/03/2018 09:14:15 AM: > > Thanks Bertrand, will work in this today. > Hi Matt, I'm not sure whether this quarterly report is the appropriate venue to raise this issue, but the project currently only has two mentors. I've done the release manager role for 1

Re: Graduation (was: Podling Report Reminder - December 2018)

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 12/03/2018 10:51:24 AM: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:00 PM David P Grove wrote: > > ...it > > seems that our release process is being impeded by a lack of engagement > > from eligible voters on the IPMC mailing list... > > I agree, a

Re: Staging environment servers

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 12/06/2018 01:32:26 PM: > From: Bertrand Delacretaz > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Date: 12/06/2018 01:33 PM > Subject: Re: Staging environment servers > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:05 PM David P Grove wrote: > > ...maybe the commen

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2018

Justin Mclean wrote on 12/05/2018 06:17:15 PM: > > Also your report is now overdue and needs to be submitted ASAP or > you be asked to report again next month. > > Thanks, > Justin > The draft report is complete in our Cwiki [1]. I am happy to submit it ASAP, but I don't appear to have the

Re: "nightly" releases of clis (was Graduation)

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 12/06/2018 03:37:15 AM: > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:55 AM Carlos Santana wrote: > > ...what you mean by releases directly from github > > without PMC votes? > > All our releases have gone thru Votes first and then publish into the > > Apache server, and link in

Re: Shared Context in OpenWhisk - Fixed format

"Erez Hadad" wrote on 12/06/2018 11:20:26 AM: > > 5. Implementation cost - not sure it's that great, but I need to study the > > issue more. I put one slide in the backup section of the presentation > listing the main components involved, and this could be further discussed. > > For example, I

OpenWhisk Composer 0.9 release

I failed to cc the dev list on the email with the results of the IPMC vote [1].The IPMC vote reached the required 3 +1 votes and the release artifacts have now been published to the dist server. I will send the official release announcement tomorrow after waiting to allow them to be

Re: Staging environment servers

maybe the comment for the report is just that it took 5 months from the time Adobe made the financial donation to the ASF to the time that the machines were actually made available to us. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16668 for the gory details. --dave Rodric Rabbah wrote on

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2018

The draft report has been moved to the incubator wiki [1]. Mentors, please sign-off and add any comments you have. thanks, --dave [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2018

[VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating-rc1: OpenWhisk Composer

This is call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating: OpenWhisk composer List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this release can be found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-227. To learn more about Apache OpenWhisk, please visit

Re: towards the first apache release of openwhisk-composer

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 11/20/2018 12:30:46 PM: > > We're all good to release this module now, and sorry that it took so > long - next time I think PPMC members can do almost all of this > without mentors help, we should try that! > > -Bertrand > Thanks Bertrand! I think I've learned how

donation of Python composer library

IBM would like to donate a Python composer library to the Apache OpenWhisk project. The code was recently open-sourced under the Apache v2 license at https://github.com/ibm-functions/composer-python/. Assuming there are no objections from OpenWhisk PPC about deciding to accept this donation,

IP clearance for Python composer donation

I have created a JIRA entry [1] to track the IP clearance [2] for the Python composer library. Bertrand, I have listed you as the officer/member managing the donation in the IP clearance form. Please take a look at the IP clearance form and let me know if there are any changes/corrections I

Re: Don't differentiate between blackbox and whitebox images

Rodric Rabbah wrote on 11/28/2018 07:09:12 AM: > > I think it would be a mistake to blindly merge two container pools - > docker actions as run today are pulled as needed and can take a long > time, they’re subject to different kinds of attacks, and can affect > performance of other tenants

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating-rc1: OpenWhisk Composer

with a call to vote on the IPMC mailing list. thanks, --dave On 2018/11/20 19:30:19, "David P Grove" wrote: > > > This is call for a vote for the release of Apache OpenWhisk > 0.9.0-incubating: OpenWhisk composer > > List of JIRA ticket(s) resolved for this rel

Re: Proposal for "fixing" the Java Runtime

Michele Sciabarra wrote on 01/07/2019 01:08:25 PM: > > I benchmarked the java runtime, here: > > https://sciabarracom.github.io/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-actionloop/ > > As you can see the openwhisk/javaaction is pretty slow. Not sure > why... So I did a proof of concept to see how much I can

Re: Proposal for "fixing" the Java Runtime

Michele Sciabarra wrote on 01/07/2019 04:53:25 PM: > > The slowdown in the init is because my PoC so far also compiles the > source, I am sending a .java not a .jar. My plan is to implement > also the precompilation as in Go. > Makes sense. Thanks. --dave

time for next OpenWhisk release wave?

I would like to see us push out a consolidated next release in the near future (by end of January?). I'd also like to see us attempt to establish a regular cadence of such consolidated releases (perhaps quarterly?). We would start this release from the leaves of our dependency tree and work

Re: Proposal: Memory Aware Scheduling

Bringing back this old discussion in the context of [1]. After some months of operational experience, it is clear we need to support memory-aware throttling. What Markus proposed below seems quite plausible to me. --dave [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/issues/4196 On

[VOTE] release Apache OpenWhisk Package Alarm, Package Cloudant, and Package Kafka 2.0.0 (incubating)

The Apache OpenWhisk Community has voted to make the first Apache release of the OpenWhisk "Package Alarm", "Package Cloudant" and "Package Kafka" components. The OpenWhisk dev list voting thread is here:

[VOTE] release Apache OpenWhisk Package Alarm, Package Cloudant, and Package Kafka 2.0.0 (incubating)

This is a call to vote on releasing version 2.0.0-incubating of Apache OpenWhisk Package Alarm, Package Cloudant, and Package Kafka. This is the first Apache release of these OpenWhisk components. These three Apache OpenWhisk packages provide basic event-based programming capabilities to an

Re: [VOTE] release Apache OpenWhisk Package Alarm, Package Cloudant, and Package Kafka 2.0.0 (incubating)

James Thomas wrote on 03/25/2019 07:53:18 AM: > > One small issue... the LICENSE.txt files in all the repos have the > boilerplate text still included at the bottom of the files. > > APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work. > > To apply the Apache License to your work,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk CLI (incubating) version 0.10.0

thread referenced below. Thanks to all who participated in the vote. The OpenWhisk podling will proceed with publishing and announcing the release of Apache OpenWhisk CLI (incubating) version 0.10.0 regards, --dave On 2019/03/20 15:28:29, "David P Grove" wrote: > > > The Apache

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)

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

Fw: [VOTE][RESULT] release Apache OpenWhisk Package Alarm, Package Cloudant, and Package Kafka 2.0.0 (incubating)

sorry, missed cc'ing our dev list. --dave - Forwarded by David P Grove/Watson/IBM on 04/01/2019 12:09 PM - From: Dave Grove To: Date: 04/01/2019 12:04 PM Subject:Re: [VOTE][RESULT] release Apache OpenWhisk Package Alarm, Package Cloudant, and Package

Re: [VOTE] release Apache OpenWhisk Package Alarm, Package Cloudant, and Package Kafka 2.0.0 (incubating)

"James W Dubee" wrote on 04/01/2019 10:37:04 AM: > > Hey Dave, > > I believe Jason Peterson did an emergency patch this weekend for the > alarms provider. We should use hash > 92b0ac8b0b006ef6c9395271fd17afa6c83c14b1 instead for alarms for the > release. Other than that +1. > Thanks James. I

[VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Composer (incubating) 0.10.0

The Apache OpenWhisk community has voted to release Apache OpenWhisk Composer (incubating) version 0.10.0. The voting thread can be found here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/801edac7a4d58436a5411fc1fbca523f24056195bdb149f9c2cdc2b8@%3Cdev.openwhisk.apache.org%3E We request that IPMC

Re: Incubator quarterly report

o: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 02/26/2019 04:15 PM Subject:Re: Incubator quarterly report Thanks Dave - I sent you on slack a list of ICLAs going back to June and which were missed on previous reports. -r On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:46 PM David P Grove wrote: > > > O

Apache OpenWhisk Composer 0.10.0 (incubating) Released

The Apache OpenWhisk project is happy to announce the release of Apache OpenWhisk Composer 0.10.0 (incubating). Apache OpenWhisk Composer is a new programming model for composing cloud functions built on Apache OpenWhisk. Key features of the 0.10.0 release of Composer include: + New

Fw: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Composer (incubating) 0.10.0

I failed to cc the dev list on the RESULT email; apologies. --dave - Forwarded by David P Grove/Watson/IBM on 02/27/2019 01:22 PM - From: Dave Grove To: Date: 02/27/2019 12:00 PM Subject:Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk Composer (incubating

Re: ActionLoop 1.0.2 with versioning and support for "more"...

"Michele Sciabarra" wrote on 02/27/2019 02:04:19 PM: > > First and before all, I changed the name to actionloop-v1.0.2 so any > build depending on it can retrieve the right version... (more > version, if there is any potentially breaking change, will use a > different name). > I understand the

Welcome new Committer Olivier Tardieu

OpenWhiskers, Yes! Another new Committer! Based on his ongoing and valuable contributions to the project, the OpenWhisk PPMC has elected Olivier Tardieu as a Committer and as a PPMC member and he has accepted the invitation. Please join me in welcoming him to his new role on the project!

Re: Podling Report Reminder - March 2019

As discussed in the earlier thread [1]; I submitted the report from our CWiki draft version about 20 minutes ago. We are done modulo mentor sign-off. --dave [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5159e0fc5a37c80d528b6af07bf6dcd0a24445158a3b866cba27db42@%3Cdev.openwhisk.apache.org%3E On

Re: [DISCUSS] release openwhisk runtimes

Rob's PR to update the PHP version has been merged. We need to update the end year in all our notice files from 2018 to 2019 (I will submit PRs today). There's a pending PR [1] to bump NodeJS version to pick up latest security fixes that should merge today. We should get the update to the

Re: [DISCUSS] release openwhisk runtimes

Carlos Santana wrote on 03/16/2019 09:07:07 AM: > > At this point I’m ok with what ever plan as long we have a > continuous train of releases and becomes an easy and habit process > > the nodejs runtime doesn’t have a hard dependency and doesn’t need > to wait for client-js 3.19.0 > > I’m ok if

[DISCUSS] Release event providers

As part of the unified release, we will be doing the first Apache release of the OpenWhisk event providers (openwhisk-package-alarms, openwhisk-package-cloudant, openwhisk-package-kafka). I've taken a look at the pending PRs, and I think only the ones I just submitted to add DISCLAIMER.txt,

  1   2   3   4   >