> On 22 Jun 2018, at 05:14, Vincent S Hou <s...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > Great thanks to folks with votes and the comments.
Wow, a lot happened on my travel day! > As a recap of current replies we have received, we have opened a list of > issues to be fixed for OpenWhisk in the coming release or further releases: I’m happy with items 1-5. As long as the ASF incubator people are happy with a release that doesn’t have the org.apache.openwhisk.* package name, it all seems fine. > Regarding how many repositories we are going to release, we decided to > continue with the release of 13 repositories, after my discussions with many > OpenWhiskers. All the 13 repos by far are great intelligent assets, which > have been evolving during the past months or even years. FWiW, I strongly disagree with this. Bertrand took a fairly cursory look over the first attempt at a release and came up with a laundry list of items to be addressed - none of which were related to the operation of the code itself or even the build process. It’s reasonable to assume that when it goes to the Incubator people, they are going to have another list of items to address that are again nothing to do with the operation of the code. It seems to me that it would be much easier and *polite* to get all the way through to a release tarball on the Apache servers with a single component that’s reasonably easy for the Incubator people to assess and check that we’ve got everything right. It really doesn’t matter what it is as it’s all about the release process details. Rodric suggested wskdeploy or the GoSDK. Either would work really well as they are small and easily buildable. I see no reason why once we successfully get the first tarball onto the Apache servers, we can’t start rolling the “big” product (the 13 inter-related tarballs) the following day as 0.9.1. If we really want 0.9.0 to be the full caboodle, then, we can do the “get-our-ducks-in-row” release of wskdeploy as 0.8.0. Regards, Rob -- (“-ra” just looks wrong!)
