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?
thanks, Arun 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. >> >> Arun >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> Arun C. Murthy >> Hortonworks Inc. >> http://hortonworks.com/ >> >> > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
