It seems that everyone is in favor of renaming 0.8.3 to 0.9.0. I made the following changes in the jira: (1) rename version 0.9.0 to 0.10.0.0; (2) rename version 0.8.3 to 0.9.0.0; (3) add version 0.9.0.1.
Thanks, Jun On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly> wrote: > Jun, > > Makes sense, thanks! > > ~ Joestein > On Sep 10, 2015 1:05 PM, "Jun Rao" <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi, Joe, > > > > One of the reasons that we have been doing beta releases before is to > > stabilize the public apis. However, in trunk, we have introduced the api > > stability annotation. The new java consumer api is marked as unstable. > With > > this, even if we name the first release of the new consumer as 0.9.0.0 > > (i.e., w/o beta), the users will understand that the api is subject to > > change. Then, we just need to be prepared for 0.9.0.x releases soon after > > for critical bug fixes since there are lots of new code in 0.9.0.0. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
