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 43A4D18C7F for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:16:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 78609 invoked by uid 500); 10 Sep 2015 19:16:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 78555 invoked by uid 500); 10 Sep 2015 19:16:16 -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 78495 invoked by uid 99); 10 Sep 2015 19:16:16 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:16:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id BABA5C01AB for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:16:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.9 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=squareup.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ytf1HPlmkKzx for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:16:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id F031843C66 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbmp1 with SMTP id mp1so28627075lbb.1 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:16:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=squareup.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=nd/fDDWb8qhRKzAv8ypjRB7zH3EK0b9Kqq3KjF50J7c=; b=f+fezpXmJ6vB93V/tFfhTeSEmxM/gXzcRA1QJT4dNK5I85JY5KajSjEK3DZAO4u4Xw 3TKQLZBvY0ocvYRsxnlZtsbLPTTJFSqQBxjuBOjO6MTT5M1AxQdKbvE2gixBbH/GYffl ryLWSTjiR/7zlInGwFvvw4oGLXsjVmeV6Xk04= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=nd/fDDWb8qhRKzAv8ypjRB7zH3EK0b9Kqq3KjF50J7c=; b=F1tsWDYsZnuhjbxae6QOx1AFkiF3FiddPz6bHiKIqhh/6R7DINLO1vl1YgRC8SyQ9c AqUTKmwRNN1NMda1brnJLtrfgRD1z49YuR7a5/WSAV74kLFPOhD6ZCpm35APFOpCK8Gd LatKHXrkxXui1LKV45vKWUk+XibrYbNB0ddN5tD7lHEImxMLVRHGEFuwlFMXXmlOXX9n AWkUQ97Xb0Age5VQfbXx6sOjGSpALXBiF+7EXs/bX1uSYAhVGDZ2lkb8p2EWls76V5Y+ iANJ1aEts3Ox+uGS+LPpGGEuiqYBIUpe9GZ1gHRlocE8AT7DSaiW/dYK1gPFBZ6MmL3L fOPw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUGCG+nI1mD75qRRTHEvfO/TQk82dTgKf+4K6IX2ML5wxzWOGZpf1vhlObKwj1PsvAt4m3 X-Received: by 10.112.161.40 with SMTP id xp8mr37433281lbb.71.1441912565569; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:16:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.144.10 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:15:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <61c9572d8230356aad37962a4da4de81@openmailbox.org> References: <61c9572d8230356aad37962a4da4de81@openmailbox.org> From: Chris Conroy Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:15:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Question about 3.5.0 stability and versioning To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25f5244b297051f696e35 --001a11c25f5244b297051f696e35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On a related note: intention to cut a 3.5.1-alpha release was announced in early February yet it was only just released. This seems like a very long window for an alpha quality release. Why not just cut a new point release rather than wait for all of the minor issues to be resolved? This long timeframe was a bit frustrating since I was waiting on the release to see if it fixes the looped NPE issue that we hit quite frequently in development. Eventually I gave up and cut an internal release for our users. I was a bit surprised to see multiple alpha release candidates. Also, the release candidates are tagged with the same version of 3.5.1-alpha instead of e.g. 3.5.1-alpha-rc1 which means all of our maven/nexus caches won't be able to pick up the official release without being manually cleared! Could we please tag the release candidates with different versions in the future? On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:08 AM, 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 > --001a11c25f5244b297051f696e35--