hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:27:53 GMT
I'm partial to 2.0.0-alpha[x]/beta[x]

* Conveys that it's 2.x (not 1.x)
* Conveys "instability"
* Doesn't buck Maven's view of the world (Maven is happy with a version 
string of 2.0.0-alpha)
* Still enables a "2.0.0" later

Sean Busbey wrote:
> Hi folks!
> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in
> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could
> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
> 1.y major release series.
> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the
> faint of heart.
> Thoughts?

View raw message