I am fine with that too, but it is going to be a fairly large amount of work to pull in all of the bug fixes into 2.0 that have gone into 0.23. There was already a lot of discussion about just rebasing 2.1 instead of trying to merge everything back into it and 2.1 is a lot further along then 2.0 is. Just something to be aware of.
--Bobby Evans On 9/4/12 2:19 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >+1 for moving on with 2.0 till it gets GA'ed, given we haven't made much >progress on 2.0.1-alpha. > >+1 for putting the alpha/beta tags only on releases, and not on branches. > >This also reduces some branch-clutter like I mentioned on the other >thread on general@h.a.o. > >Thanks, >+Vinod > >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. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -- Owen >
