+1 on 2.0.0-alpha[x]/2.0.0-beta[x]. 2017-03-29 10:07 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>:
> That settles it. :-) > > I'd also be cool with -alpha, -beta, etc. > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99 regardless > of > > content. > > > > Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an answer for > > this: > > http://semver.org/#spec-item-9 > > > > From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I would > > suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think we > > should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for > > anything but packaging work. > > > > Enis > > > >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi folks! > >> > >> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase > >> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet? > >> > >> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in > >> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0, > >> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0, > >> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose. > >> > >> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could > >> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train > >> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the > >> 1.y major release series. > >> > >> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta > >> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1, > >> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of > >> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are > >> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the > >> faint of heart. > >> > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> >
