+1 on 2.0.0-alpha/beta. I think each of the alpha or beta will go through RCs as well.
Thanks. Jerry On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Phil Yang <ud1...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 on alpha/beta, too. If they are not enough we can also have 2.0.0-rc :) > > Thanks, > Phil > > > 2017-03-29 12:18 GMT+08:00 Yu Li <car...@gmail.com>: > > > +1 on -alpha/-beta, and cannot wait to see an alpha1 out (smile) > > > > Best Regards, > > Yu > > > > On 29 March 2017 at 10:28, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +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? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
