directory-kerby mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zheng, Kai" <kai.zh...@intel.com>
Subject RE: Release names
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2016 22:31:58 GMT
Hi Julian,

Thanks for your feedback and suggestion. It would be probably my bad. What we want is, by
thru some RC releases, the code base can be mature and the major 1.0.0 release then be out.
I thought we should have used 'M'(milestone) instead of 'RC' for this purpose? Emmanuel did
mention this idea some time before, but considering the change may cause messy we don't do
it. I guess we can consider different release name strategy after 1.0.0 accordingly?

Regards,
Kai

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:24 AM
To: kerby@directory.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release names

Le 05/04/16 00:04, Julian Hyde a écrit :
> Has anyone commented that on your release naming policy? Maybe you’ve got a good reason
for including “RC” in release names, but I wanted to point out that they look strange
to people.
>
> Josh Elser just included Kerby 1.0.0-RC2 in Apache Calcite’s Avatica 
> sub-project[1], and my first reaction was, “Why is he including a 
> release candidate as a dependency?” We have a policy of not depending 
> on release candidates or snapshots. In Apache, a release candidate has 
> not necessarily passed a vote,
At The ASF *EVERY* single release passed a vote. Always. That of course includes RC.

A Release Candidate is just a pre-GA version : we think we are almost done, but we would be
sure not to miss obvious bugs before going to GA, just for the sake of providing a stable
and production ready product.


> so is not necessarily “clean” from an IP standpoint. 

They *are* clean. We don't release if it's not clean from an IP standpoint.

Mime
View raw message