On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 10/9/18 12:44 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Accumulo devs, > >> > >> I'm thinking about initiating a vote next week for a 2.0.0-alpha > >> release, so we can have an official ASF release (albeit without the > >> usual stability expectations as a normal release) to be available for > >> the upcoming Accumulo Summit. > >> > >> An alpha version would signal our progress towards 2.0.0 final, serve > >> as a basis for testing, and give us something to share with a wider > >> audience to solicit feedback on the API, configuration, and module > >> changes. Of course, it would still have to meet ASF release > >> requirements... like licensing and stuff, and it should essentially > >> work (so people can actually run tests), but in an alpha release, we > >> could tolerate flaws we wouldn't in a final release. > >> > >> Ideally, I would have preferred a 2.0.0 final at this point in the > >> year, but I think it needs more testing. > >> > >> Does an alpha release next week seem reasonable to you? > > > > > > I am in favor of an Alpha release. Also, Alpha releases imply feature > > freeze in some projects. I am in favor of feature freeze. Is anyone > > opposed to feature freeze? > > > > Below is what feature freeze means to me. > > > > We agree to avoid adding new features for 2.0 AND work on 2.0 will > > focus on bug fixes and polishing features added before the Alpha. > > This polishing work could result in API changes. If anyone really > > wants to add a new feature, they should discuss it on the mailing > > list. > > No concerns with an alpha also implying a feature-freeze. That does mean > that it should be even more straightforward to have a complete list of > the features landing in 2.0.0 ;) (which remains my only concern)
Are you concerned about not completing the release notes before an alpha vote? Or is your concern something else?
