+1 On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jiten...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> 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 > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >
