Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D8C1106CA for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:02:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 67416 invoked by uid 500); 21 Mar 2015 12:02:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 67368 invoked by uid 500); 21 Mar 2015 12:02:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 67356 invoked by uid 99); 21 Mar 2015 12:02:23 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:02:23 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of samweisberg@openmailbox.org designates 62.4.1.33 as permitted sender) Received: from [62.4.1.33] (HELO mail2.openmailbox.org) (62.4.1.33) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:02:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE66B20372F for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:01:57 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=openmailbox.org; h=user-agent:message-id:references:in-reply-to:subject:subject :from:from:date:date:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :content-type:mime-version:received:received; s=openmailbox; t= 1426939316; bh=azJJedsCL/TTPEFKAfpse62TQ58k2B4nZ4RmMVhGOsU=; b=e vfQIqaOQwSYt4UHNG7kxm1Huws5YVNy+VQfJWFHNT6CGQ7Gr20KgXp/y0JmpLYtv spYH2tfW+qab5bvINymCbh3QKVWL39uRF0ZQgCsDUldd93GeQ3kT+KANpISruWpa 9n1/kB7hu2RJqGvRO/efcib7KN9Qi12AXjWxXIoOZs= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at openmailbox.org Received: from mail2.openmailbox.org ([62.4.1.33]) by localhost (mail.openmailbox.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h8lnzX52mVXY for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:01:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from www.openmailbox.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158B62032A2 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:01:55 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:01:55 +0100 From: Sam Weisberg To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about 3.5.0 stability and versioning In-Reply-To: <1A52E2A5-016C-455D-A666-6F762E2DF626@yahoo.com> References: <61c9572d8230356aad37962a4da4de81@openmailbox.org> <1A52E2A5-016C-455D-A666-6F762E2DF626@yahoo.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: samweisberg@openmailbox.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Flavio, thanks for your reply. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the 3.5.0 release in itself can be considered stable in terms of software quality, but the feature set may change during the 3.5 maintenance cycle? If so, is it likely that 3.5 releases will introduce incompatible changes in terms of ensemble and client-server combination? Also, would you say that that 3.5.0 and it's new features can be used in production? Cheers, Sam On 2015-03-21 12:29, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > Hi Sam, > > The label "alpha" refers to an alpha release of the 3.5 branch, not an > alpha version of 3.5.0. We typically only have bug fixes for the minor > releases of a branch, and for 3.5, we have used alpha to say that the > release is indeed unstable and that major changes could come with > later releases of the branch. > > I suppose we could have done 3.5.0-alpha, 3.5.0-beta, 3.5.0 or some > similar sequence, but that isn't the current thinking afaict. > > -Flavio > >> On 21 Mar 2015, at 09:08, Sam Weisberg >> wrote: >> >> Hi list, >> >> I am a little confused about the versioning of the 3.5 release branch. >> When looking at the homepage, it sais the 3.5 release "is alpha >> quality" and it is suffixed with a -alpha tag. >> >> When I first looked at the github releases[1] however, it seams to >> indicate that there has already been a 3.5 release candidate and a 3.5 >> release. >> In addition, the devs seem to be gearing up for a 3.5.1 release[2], >> which would be curious if there was not even a stable 3.5.0 release. >> There is also no longer an active milestone for 3.5.0 in Jira. >> >> Considering all that, I have a bit of trouble understanding the >> implications of the -alpha suffix of the 3.5.0 release. >> Can the 3.5.0 release be considered stable and is just not widely >> used? >> I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me a bit. >> >> Cheers, >> Sam >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/releases >> [2] >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201502.mbox/%3CCANLc_9JktxbnYuyW2EbvFEcRoaZWMsPf38YdoM=5JLWLUsZDNA@mail.gmail.com%3E