Ok cool yeah sounds good. +1 for Alpha
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:37 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > And can we keep the master branch the one used for 2.0.0-* until 2.0.0 > is ready for candidates for a GA release? > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > yes alphas please. Do we want to talk about expectations on time > > between alpha releases? What kind of criteria for beta or GA? > > > > a *lot* has changed in the 2.0 codebase. > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ed Coleman <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > In addition to the reasons stated by Christopher, I think that it also > provides a clearer signal to earlier adopters that the public API *may* > change before the formal release. With a formal release candidate, I > interpret that it signals that only bug-fixes would occur up and until the > formal release. > > > > > > With the length of time that we take between minor and patch releases, > the even longer time that it takes the customer base to upgrade and > development cost that we have supporting multiple branches, taking some > extra time now to solicit feedback seems prudent. While the specifics and > implications of semver are clear, sometimes it seems that there is > additional weight and additional perceived risk when changing major > versions, an alpha version preserves our flexibility while still moving > forward. > > > > > > Ed Coleman > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] > > > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM > > > To: accumulo-dev <dev@accumulo.apache.org> > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha? > > > > > > Hi Accumulo devs, > > > > > > I'm thinking about initiating a vote next week for a 2.0.0-alpha > release, so we can have an official ASF release (albeit without the usual > stability expectations as a normal release) to be available for the > upcoming Accumulo Summit. > > > > > > An alpha version would signal our progress towards 2.0.0 final, serve > as a basis for testing, and give us something to share with a wider > audience to solicit feedback on the API, configuration, and module changes. > Of course, it would still have to meet ASF release requirements... like > licensing and stuff, and it should essentially work (so people can actually > run tests), but in an alpha release, we could tolerate flaws we wouldn't in > a final release. > > > > > > Ideally, I would have preferred a 2.0.0 final at this point in the > year, but I think it needs more testing. > > > > > > Does an alpha release next week seem reasonable to you? > > > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > > > -- > > busbey > > > > -- > busbey >
