Thanks @Flavio for the initiative. +1 on the idea of "3.6.0-alpha" release
plans.

Just a thought - I'm not sure, whether multiple on going alpha
versions(3.5.x-alpha and 3.6.x-alpha) could create confusion to the users.
I'd prefer to make 3.5.x to a beta or a stable version first, then release
3.6.x-alpha soon. I agree to kick start release planning of "3.6.0-alpha"
and discuss tentative release dates so that it would help the
committers/contributors/users to push their interested work.

Best Regards,
Rakesh

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I think having more frequent release is beneficial to both the project, and
> the users and community, so I am +1 on the idea of cutting out a 3.6 alpha
> release for new features. Regarding additional burden, my understanding is
> the cost would be similar as releasing a beta version such as 3.5.x but
> smaller than releasing a stable version 3.4.x (where stability / quality
> matters), so it seems manageable.
>
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, I’d love to see TTL nodes released. For our needs, FWIW, at
> > Elasticsearch we also need ZOOKEEPER-1525 <https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1525> released.
> >
> > -Jordan
> >
> > > On Oct 16, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello there,
> > >
> > > There are a few things interesting in trunk, like the TTL nodes feature
> > and the performance improvement in ZK-2024, and I've been wondering if it
> > would make sense to cut an alpha release for folks to start testing.
> Points
> > to keep in mind are:
> > >
> > > - Positive: There are features that would be good to make available
> > through a release so that the community can start testing more broadly.
> > > - Negative: Our focus will remain in 3.5 until it stabilizes, so
> > creating a 3.6 branch will create some additional burden to the
> community.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts here?
> > >
> > > -Flavio
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Michael.
>

Reply via email to