I don't know the answers to these questions. I just want to put a
stake in the ground before the Accumulo Summit, so we have a basis for
evaluation and testing, and answering some of these unknowns.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:28 AM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I would like to know what the scope of 2.0 is. Specifically:
>
> * What's new in this 2.0 alpha that people that is driving the release?
> * Is there anything else expected to land post-alpha/pre-GA?
>
> On 10/6/18 1:36 PM, Sean Busbey 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> >> To: accumulo-dev <[email protected]>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
