+1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> Okay, to how about we make this > > <dependency> > <groupId>org.apache.flink</groupId> > <artifactId>flink-core</artifactId> > <version>0.9.0-milestone-1</version> > </dependency> > > I think it is common that milestones have numbers. There is no such thing > as "the" milestone. > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Yeah, always prefer to get it with consensus that VOTE > > > > I am fine with either. > > > > - Henry > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > The ASF press team wants to announce next week, so a 3-day vote right > now > > > might cancel the subject line of this thread :-) > > > > > > Perhaps we can reach consensus in the DISCUSS thread or have a 24-hour > > vote? > > > > > > I agree with Stephan on 0.9.0.M1 (or 0.9.0-m1 or whatever), as it seems > > > that other open source projects are using this naming scheme. > > > > > > Kostas > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> I think "Milestone" pretty much says that we have some crucial things > in > > >> there, but not all. "Beta" in comparison, has an "immature early > > version" > > >> connotation. > > >> > > >> We are, for example, using a milestone 1 version of Jetty for the Web > > >> Frontend, so that is a pretty standard thing, in my opinion: > > >> > > >> <dependency> > > >> <groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId> > > >> <artifactId>jetty-server</artifactId> > > >> <version>8.0.0.M1</version> > > >> </dependency> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Looks like we need to vote on 0.9-beta or 0.9-milestone. > > >> > > > >> > Can we find consensus whether to add a 1 after the name? -beta1 or > > >> > -milestone1. > > >> > Adding a 1 allows us to create a second beta/milestone release. > > >> > > > >> > I'm against adding a 1. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Two weeks have passed since we've discussed the 0.9 release the > > last > > >> > > time. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The ApacheCon is in 18 days from now. > > >> > > > If we want, we can also release a "0.9.0-beta" release that > > contains > > >> > > known > > >> > > > bugs, but allows our users to try out the new features easily > > >> (because > > >> > > they > > >> > > > are part of a release). The vote for such a release would be > > mainly > > >> > about > > >> > > > the legal aspects of the release rather than the stability. So I > > >> > suspect > > >> > > > that the vote will go through much quicker. > > >> > > > > >> > > +1 for 0.9-beta > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
