Release PR for public release r1.2 (M4)

[hdamker]

What type of PR is this?

Add one of the following kinds:

• documentation
• subproject management

What this PR does / why we need it:

Create the public release r1.2, see #352

• API Readiness Checklists and CHANGELOG are anticipating the merge of
  • QoD Test definitions #349
  • Update QoD_User_Story.md #354
  • Add new error schema to extendDuration: SessionStateInConflict409 with QUALITY_ON_DEMAND.SESSION_EXTENSION_NOT_ALLOWED  #356
    These PRs have to be merged before the release PR!

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #352

Special notes for reviewers:

Changelog input

 Updates of file versions, CHANGELOG and README for public release

[github-actions]

🦙 MegaLinter status: ✅ SUCCESS

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Fixed	Errors	Elapsed time
✅ ACTION	actionlint	2		0	0.03s
✅ OPENAPI	spectral	3		0	5.2s
✅ REPOSITORY	git_diff	yes		no	0.06s
✅ REPOSITORY	secretlint	yes		no	1.07s
✅ XML	xmllint	1	0	0	0.07s
✅ YAML	yamllint	3		0	0.83s

See detailed report in MegaLinter reports

MegaLinter is graciously provided by

[hdamker]

Added #356 proactively to CHANGELOG and updated the PR description.

[hdamker]

All PRs for v0.11.0 so far closed, adding @camaraproject/release-management_maintainers as reviewer.

[hdamker]

@jlurien @RandyLevensalor @eric-murray @tlohmar: I've addressed #340 here with e7bd701. Please have a look if that is ok for you.

[tanjadegroot]

I do not see the updated User Story file in this PR, but I have a comment on the Summary section:
"As an application developer belonging to an enterprise, I want to request (using my application server/backend service), stable latency and/or stable throughput for a specified App-Flow from a Communication Service Provider (CSP), so that I can ensure better quality of experience for our end users including under network congestion"

I would propose to drop the "from a Communication Service Provider (CSP)" as the app can also talk to an Aggregator.
Or would it be "for a specified App-Flow from a given device connected to the application through the network, so that ..." ?

Also suggest to drop the word "our" from "our end users".

[tanjadegroot]

I think you can remove the LICENCE.APACHE.2.0 file from the code/Test_definitions folder as it is already present in the main folder.

[tanjadegroot]

M4 release management review done: A few minor comments only
please check and then LGTM

[hdamker]

@tanjadegroot Thanks a lot for the intensive review. See my answer on your comments. Please have a view if ok for you. I have also deleted the duplicated license file (I recently added the file at the right place but have overseen that there was one in /code). For the User Story I don't see the changes as urgent and have kept it untouched (but I merged main into the PR branch, so that now the User Story is part of it).

@eric-murray @jlurien @RandyLevensalor please check the latest changes and approve the PR if ok for you.

[hdamker]

@jlurien @eric-murray @RandyLevensalor I've addressed all review comments from Tanja, so from Release Management there is green light. But I can't merge the release PR without a Codeowner review.

[RandyLevensalor]

LGTM

@hdamker thanks for all of the updates and work on this!!

[tanjadegroot]

@tanjadegroot Thanks a lot for the intensive review. See my answer on your comments. Please have a view if ok for you. I have also deleted the duplicated license file (I recently added the file at the right place but have overseen that there was one in /code). For the User Story I don't see the changes as urgent and have kept it untouched (but I merged main into the PR branch, so that now the User Story is part of it).

Review done by RM: LGTM