Correct me if I am wrong, but when we release a component as a part of our stack, we make a certain statement (if not a commitment) to the users' community about where we stand wrt the quality/maturity of the component in question.
Would 'alpha' tag be enough to warrant including it into the release? Thoughts? Cos On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:10PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:23AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Well, I guess the silence was indicative enough ;) > >> > >> I think it was a game of reverse musical chair ;-) > >> > >> > I volunteer for the 1.2 RM role, but might be asking for the help from > >> > the > >> > community, depends on how my schedule pans out for the next few weeks. > >> > >> That sounds fantastic! I'll definitely make myself available for help and > >> it > >> would be great if other folks can free up some bandwidth. > >> > >> > I will start shortly by trimming the list of the issues aimed for 1.2 > >> > and, if > >> > you see something that shouldn't be moved to 1.3, please raise your voice > >> > either in JIRA or here on dev@ > >> > >> Speaking of which: have we settled for which platforms are we releasing? > >> I mean both Linux flavors and hardware. The later may require additional > >> volunteers if, for example, we want to include PPC and ARM in the matrix. > > > > +1 While we have a good picture of the OS matrix already, some of the > > hardware platform-specific issues might warrant a careful navigation. > > Forgot to add -- I'm also working with Greenplum community to get us > at least an alpha tag on their side. > > Thanks, > Roman.
