BTW, same goes with docs -- Sean, if you want to add a /docs/2.0-preview on the website and link to it, go for it!
Matei On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there any way to remove artifacts from Maven Central? Maybe that would > help clean these things up long-term, though it would create problems for > users who for some reason decide to rely on these previews. > > In any case, if people are *really* concerned about this, we should just > put it there. My thought was that it's better for users to do something > special to link to this release (e.g. add a reference to the staging repo) > so that they are more likely to know that it's a special, unstable thing. > Same thing they do to use snapshots. > > Matei > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I still don't know where this "severely compromised builds of limited >>>> usefulness" thing comes from? what's so bad? You didn't veto its >>>> release, after all. >>> >>> >>> I simply mean that it was released with the knowledge that there are >>> still significant bugs in the preview that definitely would warrant a veto >>> if this were intended to be on a par with other releases. There have been >>> repeated announcements to that effect, but developers finding the preview >>> artifacts on Maven Central months from now may well not also see those >>> announcements and related discussion. The artifacts will be very stale and >>> no longer useful for their limited testing purpose, but will persist in the >>> repository. >>> >>> >> A few months from now, why would a developer choose a preview, alpha, >> beta compared to the GA 2.0 release ? >> >> As for the being stale part, this is true for every release anyone put >> out there. >> >> >> -- >> Luciano Resende >> http://twitter.com/lresende1975 >> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >> > >
