hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Yang <ud1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:18:26 GMT
+1 on alpha/beta, too. If they are not enough we can also have 2.0.0-rc :)

Thanks,
Phil


2017-03-29 12:18 GMT+08:00 Yu Li <carp84@gmail.com>:

> +1 on -alpha/-beta, and cannot wait to see an alpha1 out (smile)
>
> Best Regards,
> Yu
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 10:28, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino219@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 on 2.0.0-alpha[x]/2.0.0-beta[x].
> >
> > 2017-03-29 10:07 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message