Why not call it 2.0.0Alpha1, or 2.0.0Beta1? Calling it RC will be confusing for people who haven't read this conversation. The only problem with alpha or beta is that you won't get a 2.0.0 release in the end, but a 2.0.1. Many people don't trust '.0' releases anyhow though.
-Ivan On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Sahaya Andrews <andr...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 from me as well. > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Nozomi Kurihara <nkuri...@yahoo-corp.jp> > wrote: >> + 1 for releasing RC version early >> >> >> ________________________________ >> 差出人: Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> >> 送信日時: 2018年4月19日 4:24 >> 宛先: dev@pulsar.incubator.apache.org >> 件名: Re: Plan for Pulsar 2.0 release >> >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Jai Asher <jai.ashe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 for releasing the RC early >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:52 PM Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > +1 for releasing an RC version prior to an official release. >>> > >>> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi everyone, >>> > > >>> > > I think we are approaching the completion of most major items that were >>> > > scheduled for 2.0 release. >>> > > >>> > > Since there is a big number of items that went in, like for example: >>> > > * Migrating BookKeeper from Yahoo branch based on 4.3 to main Apache >>> 4.7 >>> > > * Schema >>> > > * Topic Compaction >>> > > * Functions >>> > > * Client API refactorings >>> > > >>> > > I would suggest to have a "2.0.0-RC1" release, still officially >>> released >>> > > with regular process, so that we'll have a chance to iron out any bugs, >>> > > tools or packaging issue before marking 2.0 as "stable". >>> > > >>> > > My idea is use next week to finish up all the pending tasks and >>> > > documentation changes and kickoff the release process for 2.0.0-rc1 in >>> > the >>> > > week after. >>> > > >>> > > Any thoughts with respect to this? >>> > > >>> > > Matteo >>> > > -- >>> > > Matteo Merli >>> > > <mme...@apache.org> >>> > > >>> > >>>
