Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAha9a0-mzVHJXtx8hhxPjyBjFhqUem9of2i3xAny+S_W=8Z-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+RK=_CNDB-SP=QvFFGdWbrSrKjO+jd_W2v4reCKE+H7HN9adw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADcMMgHm+kh_SttkryZfBHO2VWBGjTAUTSONa_msyehbGqKTaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+RK=_B74byUjS6cTy+V5td=Bfefiu1+1UFZ6n0mbk8nTBGXmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62ydNHshje9-i7gRpqJ2kNpJLQykhzbR-5wB8Csj8mTJXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+RK=_C7xKrwtBi-UFjHHdgBkft-zKo7VMjTOrA=WnkO6jEBjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62wW7GFEwez8PNBBJgNW8zp4yj3aBOJLk+6_zdcoZFa-ag@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+RK=_Bk4eGscCK7yvf=o4G2EkCi60to+mEq8_bcmUbY-sppnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPcDmSvS1S9pM4MtkYT_RLzOqp82Jw5pgCN45Zn1JfyS2ax1LA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+RK=_B2xyD09p4XJ+n_u5qRU8qRe2ke0JiqPvSewauDSjptBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADY20s6PSDcEDTkCLrM1kvWn87C+s_DTD9RgGVQpN+2BZOOHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+RK=_DXOeht4Yn7BZC++SFeMQ+0Zs42eY00V90BCQzC41jfVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADcMMgG67_M44Ev3qqQC1Ognc6E=_ERmwF_LXPdpASC_-MFWYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+RK=_Bwd0Z59ozQgXxqiaq8gqsZ5R1-8FTreVW0se1mZb8YVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAha9a0-mzVHJXtx8hhxPjyBjFhqUem9of2i3xAny+S_W=8Z-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:11:46 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+RK=_DYtV5FY0qeusA=U6DnWof05jtwBEPvqYLgyzwxYiO+og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Sorting out issues for 0.96 for (eventual) release
From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec55551208a288204d2f74d1a

--bcaec55551208a288204d2f74d1a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I propose to avoid -dev or -beta, and stick with the even/odd scheme we
used for 0.89. We also appended a date stamp instead of minor version, e.g.
0.89.20100726. Documenting how this departure from our usual numbering
signifies a "developer preview", or whatever we'd like to call it, sounds
like a good idea.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I think that branching scheme makes sense.
>
> We should probably define the intent of even/odd versioning and compat
> rules on the webpage (the how to release instructions and on the
> download links) if we are going to do it so we don't have to explain
> it over and over.  If we do this ahead of time,  everyone should have
> the same expectations knows what this means.
>
> Also, we could consider probably playing some games with adding -dev
> or -beta after an odd version number.  I say this with some
> trepidation - over in Hadoop-land they there are some contentious
> discussions about version numbering and naming that I'd personally
> like to avoid.
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> >> How do we want to run it?  Branch 0.96 and then 0.95s are branched from
> >> 0.96?  (As in the past, 0.95.0, 0.95.1, etc., would come with no
> guarantees
> >> other than it basically works and it is allowed that 0.95.1 may not be
> >> compatible with 0.95.0, etc.).
> >>
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com
>


-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

--bcaec55551208a288204d2f74d1a--