On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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.
We do need to finish these release notes. Working towards an Alpha release will hopefully motivate finishing them. I created the following issue, if anyone thinks something should be in the release notes please add a comment. https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/issues/115 > > 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
