Frankly, planning a release without even an idea of what is going into it seems like a waste of time to me.
I didn't ask these questions to try to squash such a release; I don't think they're particularly difficult to figure out. Just curious what the release notes would look like (as a user, this is what I would care about). I don't think I'm alone. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 19:33 Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 <els...@apache.org> 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 <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 > > >> > > > > > > >
