Thank Carlos for your assessment based upon Bertrand's detailed review.
>> Yeah the renaming of the scala packages, should not be a show stopper but >> we should open an issue in the release repo to track. >> Also needs some coordination for own modules that depends on it and >> downstreams. agree. can this be an issue we open now and address >> We can release 0.9.0, and after release we can published to maven and repos >> and downtreams that depend on it we can pin in gradle to pull 0.9.0 until >> the package get's rename to org.apache.openwhisk.* agree (here and on an earlier reply), can schedule time for that in the next 1-2 months looking at known priorities. >> I agree with Bertrand about license check, >> There should be a simple way that anyone outside the openwhisk community >> can download the tgz, extract and follow simple steps to run the license >> scanner against the content of the tgz We have good independent documentation on our release repo. for running/configuring RAT and Scancode, perhaps we need to surface it better and perhaps specifically document specific steps against the .tgz artifacts? and help me, what changes that have so far been identified would warrant a new rc? .scala file name changes? -mr ps. like the implied familiarity/cool factor of using 2 letters to signoff, but still makes me feel maybe too anonymous... From: Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 06/21/2018 09:45 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk 0.9.0-incubating Thanks Betrand, You saved me time today :yay: ! Yeah the renaming of the scala packages, should not be a show stopper but we should open an issue in the release repo to track. Also needs some coordination for own modules that depends on it and downstreams. We can release 0.9.0, and after release we can published to maven and repos and downtreams that depend on it we can pin in gradle to pull 0.9.0 until the package get's rename to org.apache.openwhisk.* I agree with Bertrand about license check, There should be a simple way that anyone outside the openwhisk community can download the tgz, extract and follow simple steps to run the license scanner against the content of the tgz -cs On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:33 AM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Bertrand for the suggestion to modularize the release - I do think > that makes a lot of sense as well. > > The way we're vectoring is for the runtimes to be independent and can have > their own lifecycle. > Similarly the CLI and related tooling. > In the long run this will make a lot of sense. > > > -r > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org > > wrote: > > > Hi Vincent, > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:53 PM Vincent S Hou <s...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > ...Does it mean we can try to release one of the 13 modules, like > > openwhisk, or openwhisk-cli, or consolidate > > > all the 13 projects into one for release?... > > > > The former, I would say? > > > > It's probably more convenient for your users and w.r.t release cycles? > > > > For Apache Sling, as an example which is extremely modular, we do lots > > of individual module releases all the time, and about once a year do a > > "big bang" release that includes all core module. > > > > A model like that might be good for OpenWhisk, but as this stage as > > mentioned for a first "training release" it's probably best to stick > > to one typical module to refine the process. > > > > ... > > > * The key can be accessed at https://dist.apache.org/repos/ > > dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/KEYS. You missed "dev/" in your link... > > > > Ah ok, sorry! Got it now. > > > > > ...* So far the header is not verified with RAT. We have a unitiy repo > > call > > > openwhisk-utility( https://github.com/apache/incubator- > > openwhisk-utilities) to scan all the code. RAT has issues, > > > since I have never got it running correctly in openwhisk. The Travis > > build uses this openwhisk-utility to verify the > > > headers for every incoming commit.... > > > > Ok. The "how to I run the utility to verify the license headers" > > question should be answerable with a URL, maybe the docs of that > > utility? > > People will need to be able to run it standalone to do their own > > verifications. > > > > > * RSA private key should have some instructions. We will work on it... > > > > Great > > > > > * We do not release binary this time... > > > > Yes - I was checking for binaries that might have been leftover, saw > > none and that's good! > > > > > * We will look at the .scala code files... > > > > Ok. If the package name change is too disruptive it can be postponed > > for later during incubation, but that needs to be tracked. > > > > > * For README, let me make the build instruction more clear... > > > > Thanks! > > > > I suppose this means this vote is canceled until you have a new > > release candidate? > > > > -Bertrand > > >
