0.1.0-alpha will be better. Three digit versions are better to distinguish major, minor and maintenance releases.
On 3/23/17, 2:08 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <szets...@gmail.com> wrote: >How about the versioning? Should we start with 0.1-alpha or >0.1.0-alpha? The latter seems better. > >Tsz-Wo > >On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jnpan...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release >>> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable. >>> >>> Enis >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer >>><aengin...@hortonworks.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via >>> CBlock >>> > and Ozone. >>> > --Anu >>> > >>> > >>> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <szets...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >Hi, >>> > > >>> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can >>> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519. >>> > > >>> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We >>> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think? >>> > > >>> > >Tsz-Wo >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >
