On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Patrick Hunt 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
>
> You didn't see this paragraph in the link above?
>
> Releases are packages that have been approved for general public release, 
> with varying degrees of caveat regarding their perceived quality or potential 
> for change. Releases that are intended for everyday usage by non-developers 
> are usually referred to as "stable" or "general availability (GA)" releases. 
> Releases that are believed to be usable by testers and developers outside the 
> project, but perhaps not yet stable in terms of features or functionality, 
> are usually referred to as "beta" or "unstable". Releases that only represent 
> a project milestone and are intended only for bleeding-edge developers 
> working outside the project are called "alpha".
>
> While this doesn't mean you have to include the terms in the name but I read 
> that as certainly implying it.
>

I did see that, however I've found that Apache docs typically are
explicit if there are explicit requirements. otw the community is
enabled to do as they see fit.

>>
>> 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.
>
> Not every project is Hadoop.

Yes, that's absolutely true. The point I was trying to get across is
that I only have experience with Hadoop projects, and am therefore
biased in my experience. The community should consider other
opinions/insights, such as what you are raising.

>
> In Maven we do this all the time, both for Maven itself and the plugins. I 
> recall doing it for Cocoon.
>
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-7/
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpcomponents/httpclient/binary/
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/lang/binaries/  (Notice that 3.0, 
> which broke compatibility, had a beta)
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/jackrabbit/
>
> In fact, I would say it is more the norm to do this than not.
>
> Again, I'm used to dealing with Maven users. They will assume that if it 
> doesn't have alpha or beta in the version then it isn't one.

Seems a reasonable approach. How do you decide what is alpha vs what
is beta vs a regular release? is there some special implication of
alpha vs beta?

Patrick

Reply via email to