I propose to avoid -dev or -beta, and stick with the even/odd scheme we used for 0.89. We also appended a date stamp instead of minor version, e.g. 0.89.20100726. Documenting how this departure from our usual numbering signifies a "developer preview", or whatever we'd like to call it, sounds like a good idea.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I think that branching scheme makes sense. > > We should probably define the intent of even/odd versioning and compat > rules on the webpage (the how to release instructions and on the > download links) if we are going to do it so we don't have to explain > it over and over. If we do this ahead of time, everyone should have > the same expectations knows what this means. > > Also, we could consider probably playing some games with adding -dev > or -beta after an odd version number. I say this with some > trepidation - over in Hadoop-land they there are some contentious > discussions about version numbering and naming that I'd personally > like to avoid. > > Jon. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> How do we want to run it? Branch 0.96 and then 0.95s are branched from > >> 0.96? (As in the past, 0.95.0, 0.95.1, etc., would come with no > guarantees > >> other than it basically works and it is allowed that 0.95.1 may not be > >> compatible with 0.95.0, etc.). > >> > > > > > > +1 > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // j...@cloudera.com > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
