On 10/9/18 2:10 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:52 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
On 10/9/18 12:44 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
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?
I am in favor of an Alpha release. Also, Alpha releases imply feature
freeze in some projects. I am in favor of feature freeze. Is anyone
opposed to feature freeze?
Below is what feature freeze means to me.
We agree to avoid adding new features for 2.0 AND work on 2.0 will
focus on bug fixes and polishing features added before the Alpha.
This polishing work could result in API changes. If anyone really
wants to add a new feature, they should discuss it on the mailing
list.
No concerns with an alpha also implying a feature-freeze. That does mean
that it should be even more straightforward to have a complete list of
the features landing in 2.0.0 ;) (which remains my only concern)
Are you concerned about not completing the release notes before an
alpha vote? Or is your concern something else?
Personally, I would like to see the release notes completed before
2.0.0-alpha is announced. I can't think of compelling reasons to
complete it earlier than that. However, it seems critical to complete
them before announcing.
It's in the same line of thinking that Sean stated:
> "I'd really like us to put 2.0 GA readiness in terms of feature /
correctness goals rather than a strict time limit."
Such a major release like 2.0 without clear reasons why users should
care strikes me as very "so what?".
