Great discussion! So we're certainly cutting an initial (alpha1) release. Depending on its completeness/ quality, we can decide another alpha/ beta/ RC/ etc.
@Anil: though I also prefer dot releases, Geode is somewhat different in that it is a mature codebase out of the gate. So maybe it should be '0.9-alpha1' :) Let's focus on '1.0.0-alpha1' for now, and we can pick-up any residual ideas/ views during the ClubHouse later this month. I've created the version within JIRA (can be renamed easily). Per Anthony's first e-mail, following is the status/ questions: - GEODE-32: If the process steps on the Wiki look fairly stable, I'll resolve this JIRA. Will wait until COB today to get any feedback/ questions - GEODE-18: @Dick: any updates? - GEODE-608/609/611: I see activity on these JIRAs but aren't assigned to anyone. Also, can these be marked 'in Progress'? Thanks, Nitin ________________________________________ From: shaposh...@gmail.com <shaposh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 9:40 PM To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org Cc: Anthony Baker Subject: Re: Review of 1.0.0-alpha1 issues On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Thanks Nitin, > >>> My preference would be for dot releases instead of alpha1, apha2, beta, > RC, etc. Other thoughts? > +1 on this...If we are planning to do only one intermediate release before > 1.0 release (as mike was suggesting) we can call this 0.5. > > I had looked into the task/tickets for alpha release; i was trying to see > if we have any additional intermediate releases and requirement for them. On the other hand, alpha/beta release labels clearly send signal to your user community to start testing and providing feedback. Alphas says: do it now or later, beta says: do it now or forever hold your peace. This worked well for Hadoop 2.0 release. Thanks, Roman.