hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suresh Srinivas <sur...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Release numbering for branch-2 releases
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:20:23 GMT
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Arun C Murthy <acm@hortonworks.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 2:34 AM, Tom White wrote:
> > Whereas Arun is proposing
> >
> >  2.0.0-alpha, 2.0.1-alpha, 2.0.2-alpha, 2.1.0-alpha, 2.2.0-beta, 2.3.0
> >
> > and the casual observer might expect there to be a stable 2.0.1 (say)
> > on seeing the existence of 2.0.2-alpha.
> >
> > The first three of these are already released, so I don't think we
> > could switch to the Semantic Versioning scheme at this stage. We could
> > for release 3 though.
> >
>
> I agree that would have been slightly better, unfortunately it's too late
> now - a new versioning scheme would be even more confusing!
>
> Would it better to have 2.0.3-alpha, 2.0.4-beta and then make 2.1 as a
> stable release? This way we just have one series (2.0.x) which is not
> suitable for general consumption.
>
> I'm ok either way, but I want to just make a decision and move on to
> making the release asap, appreciate a quick resolution.
>

+1 for 2.0.3-alpha. 2.0.3-alpha has been the release number that we have
been working on for a while. I am surprised to see the feedback that it is
confusing.

Lets constructively move forward and make a decision and send the release
out quickly. Arun, my suggestion is to call for a release vote.

Regards,
Suresh




-- 
http://hortonworks.com/download/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message