On 11/17/2014 11:12 AM, Brock Noland wrote:
> It looks like 1.6 was released with the rcX name inside so I am guessing
> that procedure will work.
>
> I might revise the parquet release process in the future. The
tarballs and
> maven artifacts have the rc2 name inside the tarball since the name "rcX"
> was in the version in the pom. I don't think that the rcX should be
in the
> pom version for the following reasons:
>
> 1) A release vote is on a specific source control tag. That tag
should not
> be updated post release thus artifacts will always have an rcX name.
> 2) Having the rc number inside the pom results in tarballs with
directories
> which contain the rc name which is confusing when the tarball itself does
> not.
>
> MRUnit can be used a reference on releasing from Apache.
>
> http://mrunit.apache.org/pmc/how_to_release.html
>
> Brock
We weren't clear on the release process at first and were including the
RC number in the version. We've since fixed that, as demonstrated by the
recent parquet-format release.
We also published RC binaries, which I think hasn't worked out well
because we're seeing other projects depend on the RC rather than a
proper release. And that's a problem because we want to be able to make
compatibility guarantees across releases, but not necessarily with
release candidates. That's why they're candidates.
rb
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Cloudera, Inc.
