Thanks Patrick. To be clear(er) I was definitely not suggesting a binary only release. Just that it seems like we could reduce the barrier to initial testing and feedback if we released a non-production ready version of the NG branch; that's really what I was after.
It sounds like the right thing to do is simply create a release of NG and be clear to users that it's an early release for testing. On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Eric Sammer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mentors, is there any other ASF connotation to calling something a new > > major version? I want to make sure I understand what I'm talking > > about. ;) > > See this, anything else you do is up to you. > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > but to be overly clear the following statement is in error: > > > "The goal would be to create a downloadable artifact for people to test > and play with without needing to build the project from source" > > That is not your goal wrt Apache. Your goal is: > > "The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All > releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make > changes to the software being released." > also > "Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for > releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. > Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software > development." > > If you want to also provide a convenience artifact (ie binary(s)) > along with the source release artifact that's fine, but that's not > what you are "releasing". > > We face the same issue in ZK. We resolve it by releasing new official > versions and just messaging what's stable vs beta vs alpha etc... > That's what you have a web site for. Blogs, etc... We did the same > thing in Whirr. > > Start creating & publishing releases often, that's the only way to get > things into user's hands. > > Patrick > -- Eric Sammer twitter: esammer data: www.cloudera.com
