Forking the thread. In the previous 2.7.1 thread [1], there were enough yays to my proposal to wait for a bug-fix release or two before calling a 2.x release stable. There were some concerns about the naming.
We have two options, taking 2.8 as an example (1) Release 2.8.0, call it as an alpha in documentation and release notes, wait for a 2.8.1/2.8.2 reasonably stable enough to be called as the first stable release of 2.8. (2) Release 2.8.0-alpha, 2.8.0-beta etc before culminating in a 2.8.0 stable release. (1) is what I preferred first up. This is what HBase used to do, and far beyond, in the linux kernel releases. It helps in scenarios where we are forced to downgrade a release, say due to major issues. We can simply announce it as not stable retroactively, change the pointers on our website and move on. Thoughts? Thanks, +Vinod [1] http://markmail.org/thread/ogzk4phj6wsdpssu On Apr 21, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > Sure, I agree it's better to have clear guidelines and scheme. Let me fork > this thread about that. > > Re 2.7.0, I just forgot about the naming initially though I was clear in the > discussion/voting. I so had to end up calling it alpha outside of the release > artifact naming. > > Thanks > +Vinod > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> I would also like to support Karthik's proposal on the release thread about >> version numbering. 2.7.0 being "alpha" is pretty confusing since all of the >> other 2.x releases since GA have been stable. I think users would prefer a >> version like "2.8.0-alpha1" instead, which is very clear and similar to >> what we did for 2.0 and 2.1. Then we release 2.8.0 when we're actually >> stable. >> >> I don't know if it's retroactively possible to do this for 2.7.0, but it's >> something to consider for the next 2.7 alpha or beta or whatever. >>
