Owen O'Malley 2012-09-04, 18:55
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-09-04, 19:19
Robert Evans 2012-09-04, 22:05
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-09-05, 00:29
Robert Evans 2012-09-05, 14:25
Eli Collins 2012-09-05, 15:52
Andrew Purtell 2012-09-05, 18:04
Owen O'Malley 2012-09-06, 16:27
Andrew Purtell 2012-09-06, 16:29
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:18
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:38
-Re: Branch 2 release names
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:41
To be clear, I think we all seem to agree that we continue to make hadoop-2.0.3, hadoop-2.0.3 etc. with alpha/beta tags as appropriate until we git 'GA' at which point we release hadoop-2.1.0. Makes sense?
On Sep 6, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Uh, I meant 'create hadoop-2.0.2-alpha' release off branch-2.
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> Sounds fine.
>> For now, I think we can delete branch-2.1.0-alpha, create branch-2.0.2-alpha release off branch-2 and eventually make branch-2.1.0 as the stable release in the future.
>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>> While cleaning up the subversion branches, I thought more about the
>>> branch 2 release names. I'm concerned if we backtrack and reuse
>>> release numbers it will be extremely confusing to users. It also
>>> creates problems for tools like Maven that parse version numbers and
>>> expect a left to right release numbering scheme (eg. 2.1.1-alpha >
>>> 2.1.0). It also seems better to keep on the 2.0.x minor release until
>>> after we get a GA release off of the 2.0 branch.
>>> Therefore, I'd like to propose:
>>> 1. rename branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
>>> 2. delete branch-2.1.0-alpha
>>> 3. stabilizing goes into branch-2.0 until it gets to GA
>>> 4. features go into branch-2 and will be branched into branch-2.1 later
>>> 5. The release tags can have the alpha/beta tags on them.
>>> -- Owen
>> Arun C. Murthy
>> Hortonworks Inc.
> Arun C. Murthy
> Hortonworks Inc.
Arun C. Murthy