I'll run some system tests on a cluster. Will update by tonight or tomorrow.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > Right, it's historical. 0.95 would be implicitly a beta release. Calling it > 0.96-beta would mean the same thing but different from what we did before > (0.89 ahead of 0.90 as a "developer preview", which of course became much > more than that over at FB, but that's another story). > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I lack the context here, whether why we have adopted the linux's odd/even >> naming convention. Anyone kind enough to remind us again? It does not >> matter that much whether we go with 0.95.0-beta or 0.96.0-beta, >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
