On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I still don't know where this "severely compromised builds of limited > usefulness" thing comes from? what's so bad? You didn't veto its > release, after all. And rightly so: a release doesn't mean "definitely > works"; it means it was created the right way. It's OK to say it's > buggy alpha software; this isn't an argument to not really release it. > > But aside from that: if it should be used by someone, then who did you > have in mind? > > It would be coherent at least to decide not to make alpha-like > release, but, we agreed to, which is why this argument sort of > surprises me. > > I share some concerns about piling on Databricks. Nothing here is by > nature about an organization. However, this release really began in > response to a thread (which not everyone here can see) about > Databricks releasing a "2.0.0 preview" option in their product before > it existed. I presume employees of that company sort of endorse this, > which has put this same release into the hands of not just developers > or admins but end users -- even with caveats and warnings. > > (And I think that's right!) > > In this case, I would only expect the 2.0.0 preview to be treated as just any other release, period. -- Luciano Resende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
