Bump version to 0.0.2

[rhatdan]

Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh [email protected]

[wking]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:45:15PM -0800, Daniel J Walsh wrote: * Bump version to 0.0.2

We haven't actually tagged a release yet. Is there a purpose to bumping the runtime-tools version without cutting releases?

[rhatdan]

I am fine with what ever procedure we can to update the release number. The bottom line is this package is in Fedora with a very old version, I want to get it updated.

[wking]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 02:43:26PM -0800, Daniel J Walsh wrote: The bottom line is this package is in Fedora with a very old version, I want to get it updated.

To me that sounds like “we need to start cutting runtime-tools releases”, and I think that would be a great idea.

[rhatdan]

👍

[mrunalp]

Let's update with the runtime-spec rc5 and then get 1.0 rc for runtime-tools.

[wking]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:42:28AM -0800, Mrunal Patel wrote: Let's update with the runtime-spec rc5 and then get 1.0 rc for runtime-tools.

Before we jump straight to a 1.0 RC, I think we should land #321. I think that is only blocked on “where runtime-tools maintainers want the JSON Schema from the runtime-spec PR” (link to that JSON Schema in [1]). Until we document the API we're testing (and ideally, update our implementation to use that API, e.g. splitting create/start in [2]), I recommend sticking with more modest release numbers like 0.1.0, 0.2.0, etc. Hopefully that will avoid the ¾-year period in 1.0 “RCs” which runtime-spec has gone through. [1]: #321 (comment) [2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-tools/blob/8392e59c7c11b146462e20701c912242f83cf110/cmd/oci-runtime-tool/runtime_validate.go#L74