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.

Reply via email to