If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use scenarios e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is released is indeed stable.
Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release compared to 1.0 release. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote: > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This issue is > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the question > once to see whether a consensus is possible. > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the project > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your opinion, the > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative impact of > the less desirable alternative please? > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a possible > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from weighing in > on this topic.) > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense for > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the confusion > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5. > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Davor, > > > > > > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We have > a > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing Dataflow). > > > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order to > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 could > > help. > > > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand starting > > > from 2.0.0. > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see > > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable > > > release" > > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, > to > > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based > decision > > > on > > > > this matter. > > > > > > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation > > for > > > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A > > > reasonable > > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others. > > > > > > > > 1.0.0: > > > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y. > > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose. > > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying > the > > > > same number. > > > > > > > > 2.0.0: > > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing > > their > > > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin. > > > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity. > > > > * May be unexpected to some users. > > > > > > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names > > are > > > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks! > > > > > > > > Davor > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629 > > > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > >
