hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:28:19 GMT
+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