hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:07:46 GMT
That settles it. :-)

I'd also be cool with -alpha, -beta, etc. 

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99 regardless of
> content.
> 
> Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an answer for
> this:
> http://semver.org/#spec-item-9
> 
> From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I would
> suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think we
> should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for
> anything but packaging work.
> 
> Enis
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> 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?
>> 

Mime
View raw message