are we going to deem the new consumer in 0.9.0 as beta? Do we want to-do a 0.9.0-beta and this way when the consumer is g2g we 0.9.0.0
0.9.0-beta also allows us to release a lot of new things a bit sooner and have some good cycles of fixes (because you know they will come) There is enough new stuff that 0.9-something makes sense, +1 on not 0.8.3 On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote: > +1 for 0.9 > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić <ssla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9 > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > +1 for 0.9. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9. > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with > security, > > > new > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much > scoped > > > for > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many > > awesome > > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch > of > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" > > field > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Grant Henke > Software Engineer | Cloudera > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke >
