Mailing-List: contact yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of acm@hortonworks.com
 designates 209.85.210.43 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: Release numbering for branch-2 releases
From: Arun C Murthy <acm@hortonworks.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAF-WD4S+j7n9UXFFj9Y6g5XMbfeRoHy-hKCUSwVhW69tOayg2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:43:48 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EFBE9F93-78BC-46E7-B3E1-EB506952C5D7@hortonworks.com>
References: <F4A9CA29-6536-4F3D-95B4-9BF18F14C8DE@hortonworks.com>
 <CADcMMgEchNUBC3imGaE7+1iRwMG6i-sqLeZTkuQRO=kVs0kWog@mail.gmail.com>
 <711A5A6C-7478-4584-B40A-3197A0E59BB1@hortonworks.com>
 <CAF-WD4S+j7n9UXFFj9Y6g5XMbfeRoHy-hKCUSwVhW69tOayg2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org


On Feb 1, 2013, at 2:34 AM, Tom White wrote:

> Possibly the reason for Stack's consternation is that this is a
> Hadoop-specific versioning scheme, rather than a standard one like
> Semantic Versioning (http://semver.org/) which is more widely
> understood.
>=20
> With that scheme we would have something like
>=20
>  2.0.0-alpha, 2.0.0-alpha.1, 2.0.0-alpha.2, 2.0.0-alpha.3, 2.0.0-beta, =
2.0.0
>=20
> so that the alpha and beta tags all precede the 2.0.0 GA release,
> which is the one that we make compatibility promises for.
>=20
> Whereas Arun is proposing
>=20
>  2.0.0-alpha, 2.0.1-alpha, 2.0.2-alpha, 2.1.0-alpha, 2.2.0-beta, 2.3.0
>=20

Would it better to have 2.0.3-alpha, 2.0.4-beta and then make 2.1 as a =
stable release?

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.

thanks,
Arun=