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?
I am in favor of that for now. We could delay creating a 2.0 branch until someone starts making non 2.0 changes. If that never happens before 2.0 GA, then nothing to do. > 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
