accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:35:50 GMT
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:33 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I don't know the answers to these questions. I just want to put a
> stake in the ground before the Accumulo Summit, so we have a basis for

I am in favor of trying to do an alpha release and completing the
release notes before the summit.  I can help with the release notes,
it may be at the 11th hour though.

> evaluation and testing, and answering some of these unknowns.
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:28 AM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to know what the scope of 2.0 is. Specifically:
> >
> > * What's new in this 2.0 alpha that people that is driving the release?
> > * Is there anything else expected to land post-alpha/pre-GA?
> >
> > On 10/6/18 1:36 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > yes alphas please. Do we want to talk about expectations on time
> > > between alpha releases? What kind of criteria for beta or GA?
> > >
> > > a *lot* has changed in the 2.0 codebase.
> > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ed Coleman <dev1@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> In addition to the reasons stated by Christopher, I think that it also
provides a clearer signal to earlier adopters that the public API *may* change before the
formal release. With a formal release candidate, I interpret that it signals that only bug-fixes
would occur up and until the formal release.
> > >>
> > >> With the length of time that we take between minor and patch releases,
the even longer time that it takes the customer base to upgrade and development cost that
we have supporting multiple branches, taking some extra time now to solicit feedback seems
prudent. While the specifics and implications of semver are clear, sometimes it seems that
there is additional weight and additional perceived risk when changing major versions, an
alpha version preserves our flexibility while still moving forward.
> > >>
> > >> Ed Coleman
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> > >> To: accumulo-dev <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> > >> Subject: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?
> > >>
> > >> Hi Accumulo devs,
> > >>
> > >> I'm thinking about initiating a vote next week for a 2.0.0-alpha release,
so we can have an official ASF release (albeit without the usual stability expectations as
a normal release) to be available for the upcoming Accumulo Summit.
> > >>
> > >> An alpha version would signal our progress towards 2.0.0 final, serve as
a basis for testing, and give us something to share with a wider audience to solicit feedback
on the API, configuration, and module changes. Of course, it would still have to meet ASF
release requirements... like licensing and stuff, and it should essentially work (so people
can actually run tests), but in an alpha release, we could tolerate flaws we wouldn't in a
final release.
> > >>
> > >> Ideally, I would have preferred a 2.0.0 final at this point in the year,
but I think it needs more testing.
> > >>
> > >> Does an alpha release next week seem reasonable to you?
> > >>
> > >> Christopher
> > >>
> > >
> > >

Mime
View raw message