On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2013, at 2:34 AM, Tom White wrote: > > Whereas Arun is proposing > > > > 2.0.0-alpha, 2.0.1-alpha, 2.0.2-alpha, 2.1.0-alpha, 2.2.0-beta, 2.3.0 > > > > and the casual observer might expect there to be a stable 2.0.1 (say) > > on seeing the existence of 2.0.2-alpha. > > > > The first three of these are already released, so I don't think we > > could switch to the Semantic Versioning scheme at this stage. We could > > for release 3 though. > > > > I agree that would have been slightly better, unfortunately it's too late > now - a new versioning scheme would be even more confusing! > > Would it better to have 2.0.3-alpha, 2.0.4-beta and then make 2.1 as a > stable release? This way we just have one series (2.0.x) which is not > suitable for general consumption. > > I'm ok either way, but I want to just make a decision and move on to > making the release asap, appreciate a quick resolution. > +1 for 2.0.3-alpha. 2.0.3-alpha has been the release number that we have been working on for a while. I am surprised to see the feedback that it is confusing. Lets constructively move forward and make a decision and send the release out quickly. Arun, my suggestion is to call for a release vote. Regards, Suresh -- http://hortonworks.com/download/
