hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:32:28 GMT
2.0.0-alpha / 2.0.0-beta sound good to me.

On Tue, 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