+1 for format 0.1.0-alpha

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to