Thanks a lot for the supporting, Let's roll our first release. I will start preparing it. I guess we don't have any particular features need to be included in it (please let me know if I am wrong). However, we still have to make sure the license are fine and the release artifact can be built. Will file a JIRA.
Nicholas On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Jing Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Jitendra Pandey <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> >wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> >> >>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 >> >>><[email protected]> >> >>> 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" <[email protected]> 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 >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> > >> >>
