On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Eric Sammer wrote: > >> +1 on Arvind as 1.1.0 RM and on a 1.1.0 branch. +0 on labeling the release >> beta. Kind of feel like it's something to list in the README (on advice >> from phunt) and just release. Otherwise, it sounds like there will be a >> 1.1.0 final (which the ASF doesn't do). The advice I got when we tackled >> this with 1.0.0 was that the ASF produces releases, period. The quality can >> be indicated in the README (unless I misunderstood). > > I'm not sure whose advice you got but other projects do versions like > 1.2-beta all the time. IMO opinion labeling this 1.1-beta-incubating makes > it clear to everyone what it is even without reading the README, including > anyone typing the version in their pom - who almost never read those.
A couple good items on the faq about this, see this for general details on what's a release: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what Also this which goes into a bit more detail about types of releases: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#release-typeso In neither of these cases is Apache proscribing how to "name" your release however (although in the incubator you must indicate clearly "incubating"). Just the process that must be followed to consider something a release. My personal experience (granted it's with Hadoop related projects) is that they typically do not include the quality level in the name itself. Rather putting it in the readme, release notes, etc... But that's up to you. Some projects at Apache certainly do this, but none that i've been involved with. My personal preference is to have release notes that cover any issues the user should be aware of, rather than relying on "alpha/beta" labels in the name which might be confusing. Patrick
