On 03/19/2012 06:01 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
[X] -1 No - Flume should adopt some other policy
For two reasons:
1. The Apache Commons versioning policy is an elaborate policy that
categorizes interface type, based on which it defines the change types
along with the development states that the project can be in. This is
very rigid and process heavy for Flume in it's current state.
2. Labeling a release as beta in the version number implies that there
are no plans for feature addition and all work will go towards
stabilizing the artifacts. We cannot afford such constraint so early
in the life of the project. If we have a multitude of contributors who
are willing to dedicate all their work on a beta branch to stabilize
it, then it makes sense to follow such policy.
This reason makes sense in the mental context you have for the release
but highlights to me a communication failure in that I think others may
have had a different image.
I would just like to question what exactly our objective in providing
this release is so that we can decide what state we want it out in and
what label is most appropriate for such a state. I think there is some
confusion regarding this.
What you are saying makes it sounds like the release is a glorified
snapshot that we've decided to label as a release. Perhaps there is
still some communication lacking. Before we can decide on a name for the
release, I think we need to decide on what is going to go in, because I
don't think there is a concensus on that. We can't name the baby if we
don't know if it's a boy or a girl.
Thanks,
Arvind Prabhakar
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Ralph Goers
<[email protected]> wrote:
I would like to propose that Flume adopt the release numbering scheme followed
by Apache Commons which can be found at
http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html#Release_Numbers.
Please vote
[] +1 Yes - Flume should adopt this policy
[] +0 Abstain - I don't have a preference
[] -1 No - Flume should adopt some other policy
Ralph
