No. semver[1] has an explicit policy to have identifiers in this format:
MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH[-IDENTIFIER] >From [1]: Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format. Bullet point 9 in [1] talks about this. If we want to do "developer preview" releases, we should use 1.1.0-alpha, 1.1.0-beta kind of version name. [1] http://semver.org/ Enis On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < jean-m...@spaggiari.org> wrote: > Sorry guys, > > I'm know I'm very late in the process, but should we not release 1.2.0 > instead of 1.1.0? > > 0.97 was for dev > 0.99 was for dev > Should 1.1 be for dev too? Should we keep even numbers for prod releases > and odd for dev? > > JM > > 2015-04-22 17:32 GMT-04:00 Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org>: > > > I would love to see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13260 in > > if > > possible. > > > > Enis > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:49 PM, rajeshb...@apache.org < > > chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I would like to have it > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13431 > > > in. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > You have my attention all the time, Nick :-) > > > > We need the folks to get an agreement on HBASE-13149. Sean, Andy, > > Enis? > > > > Of course the last resort is we do nothing but document it with > manual > > > > workaround or manual jar replacement in 1.1. > > > > I am available to do any verification if there is any proposal. > > > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > >
