Bump v1.0rc1

[vbatts]

where ef1aa37 would be tagged v1.0.0-rc1

[wking]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:17:15PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

• version: v1.0.0-rc1

The series through 41bfb58 looks fine to me, although I went with
“rc.1” in the ChangeLog to match SemVer's own versioning 1. §9
talks about “dot separated identifiers” in the pre-release version.
But it probably only matters for sorting (e.g. rc10 probably sorts
before rc9, but rc.10 probably sorts after rc.9).

[vbatts]

@wking the link is a 404.

I'm not really sure that I've run into -rc.N much if ever. While I don't entirely care, it is very common to see -rcN

[wking]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:29:29PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

@wking the link is a 404.

Sorry, should have been: http://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html

I'm not really sure that I've run into -rc.N much if ever. While I
don't entirely care, it is very common to see -rcN

We're unlikely to hit rc.10 ;). I think we should follow the SemVer
example, but yeah, it doesn't matter much. Whichever way we go, the
ChangeLog, subsequent Go, and tag should be consistent.

[crosbymichael]

rc1 over rc.1 is much better

[crosbymichael]

LGTM

[wking]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:28PM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:

rc1 over rc.1 is much better

I don't see much difference, and certainly nothing superior about
the short form, but feel free to reroll my ChangeLog commit to adjust
‘rc.1’ → ‘rc1’.

[crosbymichael]

It already is adjusted

[tianon]

LGTM

IIRC, rc.N is primarily a python thing, but IMO rcN looks better and is much more common

[mrunalp]

LGTM

[crosbymichael]

@vbatts let me know if you get a chance to push the tag or i can do it

[crosbymichael]

0647920 should be the new commit to tag correct?

[wking]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:03:17PM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:

0647920 should be the new commit to tag correct?

Yup.

[crosbymichael]

ok, pushed the tag

https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/tree/v1.0.0-rc1

[wking]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:23:14PM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:

ok, pushed the tag

Not signed?