Date   

Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
 

Thanks for all the hard work on this Sjudeng.  I've been reviewing the current release process and will formally get started once these last items are in. There will be some deviations from the currently documented process as we will not be hosting artifacts on s3, etc. I will be documenting these and we can role the updated process into the docs after the release.

Thanks,
Ted

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:51 AM, sjudeng <sju...@...> wrote:
I added #133 back to the 0.1.0 milestone and created PR #189 to resolve it. It already has one approval so we just need one more for merge. The other two issues in the milestone are addressed by PRs #176 and #185. Both of these have requested changes that have been addressed, so once reviewers are able to acknowledge and approve those changes we'll be set.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] Splitting janusgraph-cassandra

Samant Maharaj <samant...@...>
 

I really don't think it's advisable to reuse the janusgraph-cassandra artifactId. It's extremely unexpected for the meaning of an artifactId to change after a version bump.

Essentially janusgraph-cassandra would cease to mean the jar containing the JanusGraph Cassandra backend implementation and would become the parent POM for the Cassandra modules. This would have strange effects on anyone depending on that artifactId after the version change.

In regards to using different groupIds for sub-modules, that's not a bad solution but given the relatively small number of modules overall might be a bit unnecessary.

I favour continuing to use the org.janusgraph groupId for all modules and dropping the janusgraph prefix both in the directories and in the artifactIds as it seems a bit redundant since all the modules are scoped under the org.janusgraph groupId.

Another possibility to consider is to introduce an intermediate level for backend and index implementations:

/
├── docs/
├── dist/
├── janusgraph/
│   ├── core/
│   └── test/
├── backend/ │ ├── berkeleyje/ │ ├── cassandra/ │ | ├── core/ │ | ├── test/ │ | ├── astyanax/ │ | └── cql/ │ └── hbase/ │ ├── core/ │ ├── test/ │ ├── hbase-098/ │ └── hbase-10/ ├── index/ │ ├── elasticsearch/ │ ├── lucene/ │ └── solr/ └── hadoop/

This would allow for more easily creating shared test support projects such as for all index implementations as there would be a natural place to place such projects. Additionally the parent POMs at each group would also be a great place to manage group level build configuration. This would also simplify the root POM and make maintenance easier as configuration specific to each group could be moved into the group level poms.

In terms of artifact naming, one approach could be to use the project path to create the artifactId, so the Cassandra Astyanax module would be 'backend-cassandra-astyanax'. This would be consistent with the directory structure and would communicate the purpose of the artifact as well. Such an approach would also naturally prevent any name collisions for future modules.

Sorry for the long post but I thought it would be good to put up a more detailed straw man so we can continue the discussion.

Regards,
Samant


On Thursday, 6 April 2017 12:55:22 UTC+12, sjudeng wrote:
Samant & Paul,

Thanks for your work on this. I like what you've done to clean up the project configs in the other modules in favor of the cassandra-test module.

I do agree that for consistency it would be best to include the janusgraph- prefix in the artifact id, at least for the base cassandra module. Whether it can be janusgraph-cassandra or needs to be janusgraph-cassandra-parent, I don't know. Since presumably you'll retarget to 0.2.0-SNAPSHOT, as long as there are no 0.2.0 snapshot deployments before your PR gets merged, wouldn't it be fine to reuse janusgraph-cassandra in this new context?

Also what about making the groupId org.janusgraph.cassandra for the sub-modules (core, embedded, etc.)? I'm just thinking of the eventual repository layout (see https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/janusgraph/) and wondering if it would be better organization to group the sub-modules under the additional cassandra group element.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
 

I did a dry run of the release prep last night and wanted to run the process by you all to see if it makes sense.

1. When they're ready, merge the last 2 open PRs.
2. Code freeze on 0.1 branch (do we need one final round of full testing at this point?)
3. Tag 0.1 with 0.1.0-rc2
4. Generate release artifacts (docs and signed zip) and deploy to sonatype but leave as "staged".
5. I'll create a new github pre-release against the 0.1.0-rc2 tag and upload the artifacts along with my signature. Should these include the docs?
6. Commence vote on the release.
7. Barring any issues, after a successful vote, I'll tag 0.1 branch with 0.1.0 and create the official github release, uploading the 0.1.0 artifacts.
8. Officially deploy the generated 0.1.0 docs to the docs repo.
9. Announce release

Does this approach make sense to you guys? I was debating skipping the 0.1.0-rc2 tag step, and go with 0.1.0 immediately but leave it in github "prerelease" to start but could go either way with that. For TinkerPop, we do not make that distinction with the release candidate but that's not to say we couldn't do that here.

Thanks,
Ted


On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 8:42:48 AM UTC-5, Ted Wilmes wrote:
Thanks for all the hard work on this Sjudeng.  I've been reviewing the current release process and will formally get started once these last items are in. There will be some deviations from the currently documented process as we will not be hosting artifacts on s3, etc. I will be documenting these and we can role the updated process into the docs after the release.

Thanks,
Ted

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:51 AM, sjudeng <sju...@...> wrote:
I added #133 back to the 0.1.0 milestone and created PR #189 to resolve it. It already has one approval so we just need one more for merge. The other two issues in the milestone are addressed by PRs #176 and #185. Both of these have requested changes that have been addressed, so once reviewers are able to acknowledge and approve those changes we'll be set.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Jason Plurad <plu...@...>
 

This sounds great Ted.

+1 on on the 0.1.0-rc2 tag. There's a fair chance something might go wrong, seeing that this is the first ever release. And if not, there's no problem if rc2 and 0.1.0 point at the same hash. Publishing the docs with the artifacts would be great.


On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-4, Ted Wilmes wrote:
I did a dry run of the release prep last night and wanted to run the process by you all to see if it makes sense.

1. When they're ready, merge the last 2 open PRs.
2. Code freeze on 0.1 branch (do we need one final round of full testing at this point?)
3. Tag 0.1 with 0.1.0-rc2
4. Generate release artifacts (docs and signed zip) and deploy to sonatype but leave as "staged".
5. I'll create a new github pre-release against the 0.1.0-rc2 tag and upload the artifacts along with my signature. Should these include the docs?
6. Commence vote on the release.
7. Barring any issues, after a successful vote, I'll tag 0.1 branch with 0.1.0 and create the official github release, uploading the 0.1.0 artifacts.
8. Officially deploy the generated 0.1.0 docs to the docs repo.
9. Announce release

Does this approach make sense to you guys? I was debating skipping the 0.1.0-rc2 tag step, and go with 0.1.0 immediately but leave it in github "prerelease" to start but could go either way with that. For TinkerPop, we do not make that distinction with the release candidate but that's not to say we couldn't do that here.

Thanks,
Ted


On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 8:42:48 AM UTC-5, Ted Wilmes wrote:
Thanks for all the hard work on this Sjudeng.  I've been reviewing the current release process and will formally get started once these last items are in. There will be some deviations from the currently documented process as we will not be hosting artifacts on s3, etc. I will be documenting these and we can role the updated process into the docs after the release.

Thanks,
Ted

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:51 AM, sjudeng wrote:
I added #133 back to the 0.1.0 milestone and created PR #189 to resolve it. It already has one approval so we just need one more for merge. The other two issues in the milestone are addressed by PRs #176 and #185. Both of these have requested changes that have been addressed, so once reviewers are able to acknowledge and approve those changes we'll be set.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

sjudeng <sju...@...>
 

Thanks for pushing forward on this. I think the tests are good. The only updates since tests were run were making ONC/RPC and JTS dependencies optional. But I can also rerun the test suite while you work through the other steps and they should complete in time for the vote.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
 

One point of clarification on number 5.  Right now, as you guys probably know, the docs are not actually included in the zip distribution.  I think it would be nice to do that at some point, but was thinking for this round, including the "docs" would simply mean uploading the separate doc zip for review.  Do you guys think that is sufficient or should we update the build so that the docs are copied into the dist.zip?

Thanks,
Ted

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, sjudeng <sju...@...> wrote:
Thanks for pushing forward on this. I think the tests are good. The only updates since tests were run were making ONC/RPC and JTS dependencies optional. But I can also rerun the test suite while you work through the other steps and they should complete in time for the vote.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
 

With the merge of #189, we've finished everything tagged for 0.1.0.  Unless there is anything unrepresented on that list, let's call the 0.1 branch frozen and I'll get started on the release process.

Thanks,
Ted


On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 10:57:03 AM UTC-5, Ted Wilmes wrote:
One point of clarification on number 5.  Right now, as you guys probably know, the docs are not actually included in the zip distribution.  I think it would be nice to do that at some point, but was thinking for this round, including the "docs" would simply mean uploading the separate doc zip for review.  Do you guys think that is sufficient or should we update the build so that the docs are copied into the dist.zip?

Thanks,
Ted

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, sjudeng <sju...@...> wrote:
Thanks for pushing forward on this. I think the tests are good. The only updates since tests were run were making ONC/RPC and JTS dependencies optional. But I can also rerun the test suite while you work through the other steps and they should complete in time for the vote.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

sjudeng <sju...@...>
 

Sounds good. I confirmed again that the base tests are all passing on the 0.1 branch. This covered #186 and #189 (merged locally), which were added after the full suite was run. I didn't rerun the TinkerPop tests because I don't think these two commits would affect those.

Note when preparing the release there's a "TBD" in both CHANGELOG.asc and docs/changelog.txt that you'll need to replace with the actual release date once that's known.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Misha Brukman <mbru...@...>
 

Does the 0.1 branch need something akin to this commit but with s/0.1.0-SNAPSHOT/0.1.0/ ? Or is the idea is that this is done during the release process, but never committed to the repo?

Would we want to do something like this:
  • commit the change s/0.1.0-SNAPSHOT/0.1.0/ to pom.xml files
  • build the release
  • commit the change s/0.1.0/0.1.1-SNAPSHOT/ to pom.xml files, so that any other changes on the branch, when built, automatically increment the version number

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Ted Wilmes <twi...@...> wrote:
With the merge of #189, we've finished everything tagged for 0.1.0.  Unless there is anything unrepresented on that list, let's call the 0.1 branch frozen and I'll get started on the release process.

Thanks,
Ted


On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 10:57:03 AM UTC-5, Ted Wilmes wrote:
One point of clarification on number 5.  Right now, as you guys probably know, the docs are not actually included in the zip distribution.  I think it would be nice to do that at some point, but was thinking for this round, including the "docs" would simply mean uploading the separate doc zip for review.  Do you guys think that is sufficient or should we update the build so that the docs are copied into the dist.zip?

Thanks,
Ted

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, sjudeng <sju...@...> wrote:
Thanks for pushing forward on this. I think the tests are good. The only updates since tests were run were making ONC/RPC and JTS dependencies optional. But I can also rerun the test suite while you work through the other steps and they should complete in time for the vote.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
 

Yes, my plan was to do that as part of the release process, CTR'ing those changes before I released the artifacts for vote.  

As far as release date goes, for TinkerPop, we set the release date as the same as the start of the vote so if the JanusGraph vote were to start this Wednesday, it would be April 12.  I like doing that because if we extend the vote for some reason, but do not need to rebuild any artifacts, we're good to go and don't change it again.  This has worked well in the past but I wanted to see if that was okay with folks?

Barring any delays, I'm looking to have things ready so that we can start the vote either tomorrow or Wednesday.

Thanks,
Ted

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Misha Brukman <mbru...@...> wrote:
Does the 0.1 branch need something akin to this commit but with s/0.1.0-SNAPSHOT/0.1.0/ ? Or is the idea is that this is done during the release process, but never committed to the repo?

Would we want to do something like this:
  • commit the change s/0.1.0-SNAPSHOT/0.1.0/ to pom.xml files
  • build the release
  • commit the change s/0.1.0/0.1.1-SNAPSHOT/ to pom.xml files, so that any other changes on the branch, when built, automatically increment the version number

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Ted Wilmes <twi...@...> wrote:
With the merge of #189, we've finished everything tagged for 0.1.0.  Unless there is anything unrepresented on that list, let's call the 0.1 branch frozen and I'll get started on the release process.

Thanks,
Ted


On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 10:57:03 AM UTC-5, Ted Wilmes wrote:
One point of clarification on number 5.  Right now, as you guys probably know, the docs are not actually included in the zip distribution.  I think it would be nice to do that at some point, but was thinking for this round, including the "docs" would simply mean uploading the separate doc zip for review.  Do you guys think that is sufficient or should we update the build so that the docs are copied into the dist.zip?

Thanks,
Ted

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, sjudeng <sju...@...> wrote:
Thanks for pushing forward on this. I think the tests are good. The only updates since tests were run were making ONC/RPC and JTS dependencies optional. But I can also rerun the test suite while you work through the other steps and they should complete in time for the vote.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



Re: [DISCUSS] Splitting janusgraph-cassandra

sjudeng <sju...@...>
 

The broader reorganization sounds interesting but I think it would probably need a separate discussion. How about keeping the janusgraph-cassandra prefix (janusgraph-cassandra-parent, etc.) for now just for consistency with the rest of the project and then pursing the broader project reorg (dropping janusgraph prefix and/or intermediate levels, etc.) later?


Re: [DISCUSS] Splitting janusgraph-cassandra

Samant Maharaj <samant...@...>
 

I think that's probably a good way to go forward. I'll change to janusgraph-cassandra-parent and if there are no objections I can create a pull request for the changes.


On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 13:00:36 UTC+12, sjudeng wrote:
The broader reorganization sounds interesting but I think it would probably need a separate discussion. How about keeping the janusgraph-cassandra prefix (janusgraph-cassandra-parent, etc.) for now just for consistency with the rest of the project and then pursing the broader project reorg (dropping janusgraph prefix and/or intermediate levels, etc.) later?


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

"P. Taylor Goetz" <ptg...@...>
 


On Apr 2, 2017, at 12:48 AM, 'Misha Brukman' via JanusGraph developer list <janusgr...@...> wrote:

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Jerry He <jerr...@...> wrote:
I am good with what you suggested, Misha.

0.1.x (literally), 0.2.x

There is no need to have the 'x' though.  0.1 is the minor release branch line and will move forward.

I think we need to explicitly differentiate movable pointers (release branches) vs. static pointers (specific version tags).

One proposal is what I shared earlier: 0.1.x (branches) and 0.1.1 (version tags). My concern is that 0.1 (branch) vs. 0.1.0 (release tag) is insufficiently different as to be confusing which is movable vs. static.

Here are some alternatives from a couple Apache projects:
  • Storm uses "0.1.0" (branch) and "v0.1.0" (tag) — essentially what Jerry is proposing (with a "v" prefix for version tags)
  • Zeppelin uses "branch-0.5" (branch) and "v0.5.1" (tag) — verbose
  • Toree (incubating) uses "0.1.x" and "v0.1.2" (tag) — essentially what I proposed
  • HBase uses "0.18" (branch) and "release-0.1" or "rel/0.1" (tags) — verbose
  • Cassandra uses "cassandra-0.1" for both branches and tags — seems confusing
Taking Jerry's suggestion and Storm's approach of differentiating the branches vs. tags, we can do the following:
  • branches: 0.1, 0.2, etc. — no wildcard
  • version tags: v0.1.0 — 'v' prefix
  • release candidates: v0.1-rc1 — 'v' prefix, 'rc#' suffix
Any objections?

+1

The branch/version naming convention we use in Apache Storm has worked out well for us. The “v” prefix is used to make it easy to differentiate between tags and branches.

As @sjudeng alluded to later in the thread, for release candidates I would recommend using the full 3 digit version number (i.e. "0.1.0-rc1”).

Also, since tags are mutable and can change over the course of the release candidate cycle, we typically use the commit SHA instead of the tag in identifying the precise state of the current RC when sending out VOTE emails.



Misha

-Taylor


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

"P. Taylor Goetz" <ptg...@...>
 


On Apr 10, 2017, at 6:42 PM, 'Misha Brukman' via JanusGraph developer list <janusgr...@...> wrote:

Does the 0.1 branch need something akin to this commit but with s/0.1.0-SNAPSHOT/0.1.0/ ? Or is the idea is that this is done during the release process, but never committed to the repo?

Would we want to do something like this:
  • commit the change s/0.1.0-SNAPSHOT/0.1.0/ to pom.xml files
  • build the release
  • commit the change s/0.1.0/0.1.1-SNAPSHOT/ to pom.xml files, so that any other changes on the branch, when built, automatically increment the version number
If we use the Maven release plugin, the version increment and “SNAPSHOT” removal will happen automatically.

-Taylor




On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Ted Wilmes <twi...@...> wrote:
With the merge of #189, we've finished everything tagged for 0.1.0.  Unless there is anything unrepresented on that list, let's call the 0.1 branch frozen and I'll get started on the release process.

Thanks,
Ted


On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 10:57:03 AM UTC-5, Ted Wilmes wrote:
One point of clarification on number 5.  Right now, as you guys probably know, the docs are not actually included in the zip distribution.  I think it would be nice to do that at some point, but was thinking for this round, including the "docs" would simply mean uploading the separate doc zip for review.  Do you guys think that is sufficient or should we update the build so that the docs are copied into the dist.zip?

Thanks,
Ted

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, sjudeng <sju...@...> wrote:
Thanks for pushing forward on this. I think the tests are good. The only updates since tests were run were making ONC/RPC and JTS dependencies optional. But I can also rerun the test suite while you work through the other steps and they should complete in time for the vote.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Alexander Patrikalakis <amcpatr...@...>
 

I joined the bandwagon late here, but for JTS and RPC packages, should we not include instructions to install them on gremlin shell?

Alex


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
 

I'm about to send out the vote email.  If you're okay with it, I'd still like to kick off the vote even if we end up scrapping this candidate and cutting a new one with the new additions.  I'm thinking there is a high chance of at least a little churn on this since it's our first release. Just let me know if you think that approach makes sense and I'll start the vote and we can bring this up on the vote thread.

Thanks,
Ted

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Alexander Patrikalakis <amcpatr...@...> wrote:
I joined the bandwagon late here, but for JTS and RPC packages, should we not include instructions to install them on gremlin shell?

Alex

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

"P. Taylor Goetz" <ptg...@...>
 

+1 for continuing with the RC. Even if it fails it's a good exercise.

I'm excited for the first release. Thanks Ted for stepping up as the first RM.

-Taylor

On Apr 11, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Ted Wilmes <twi...@...> wrote:

I'm about to send out the vote email.  If you're okay with it, I'd still like to kick off the vote even if we end up scrapping this candidate and cutting a new one with the new additions.  I'm thinking there is a high chance of at least a little churn on this since it's our first release. Just let me know if you think that approach makes sense and I'll start the vote and we can bring this up on the vote thread.

Thanks,
Ted

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Alexander Patrikalakis <amcpatr...@...> wrote:
I joined the bandwagon late here, but for JTS and RPC packages, should we not include instructions to install them on gremlin shell?

Alex

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1.0 Release Prep

Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
 

I'm going to go ahead and start the vote process and we can work through this over in the vote thread.  Thanks for all the help everyone.

Thanks,
Ted


On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:08:08 PM UTC-5, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
+1 for continuing with the RC. Even if it fails it's a good exercise.

I'm excited for the first release. Thanks Ted for stepping up as the first RM.

-Taylor

On Apr 11, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Ted Wilmes <twi...@...> wrote:

I'm about to send out the vote email.  If you're okay with it, I'd still like to kick off the vote even if we end up scrapping this candidate and cutting a new one with the new additions.  I'm thinking there is a high chance of at least a little churn on this since it's our first release. Just let me know if you think that approach makes sense and I'll start the vote and we can bring this up on the vote thread.

Thanks,
Ted

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Alexander Patrikalakis <amcpatr...@...> wrote:
I joined the bandwagon late here, but for JTS and RPC packages, should we not include instructions to install them on gremlin shell?

Alex

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/janusgraph-dev/YLnWWeNi0Ug/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


[VOTE] JanusGraph 0.1.0 Release

Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
 

Hello,

We are happy to announce that JanusGraph 0.1.0 is ready for release.

The release artifacts can be found at this location:
        
A binary distribution is provided for user convenience:

The GPG key used to sign the release artifacts is available at:

The docs can be found here:

The release tag in Git can be found here:

The release notes are available here:

Since this is our first release, unless there are objections to giving more than 72 hours for review, I would like to leave the [VOTE] open for the next 7 days --- closing Wednesday (4/19/2017) at 10:00 AM CST.

My vote is +1.

Thank you very much,
Ted Wilmes


Re: [VOTE] JanusGraph 0.1.0 Release

Misha Brukman <mbru...@...>
 

+1, great work on the inaugural release, everyone!

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Ted Wilmes <twi...@...> wrote:
Hello,

We are happy to announce that JanusGraph 0.1.0 is ready for release.

The release artifacts can be found at this location:
        
A binary distribution is provided for user convenience:

The GPG key used to sign the release artifacts is available at:

The docs can be found here:

The release tag in Git can be found here:

The release notes are available here:

Since this is our first release, unless there are objections to giving more than 72 hours for review, I would like to leave the [VOTE] open for the next 7 days --- closing Wednesday (4/19/2017) at 10:00 AM CST.

My vote is +1.

Thank you very much,
Ted Wilmes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developer list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

141 - 160 of 1585