also this incubator doc I just found:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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

Reply via email to