On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: > >> We have already made a lesser stable release (version >> 1.0.0-incubating) that was labeled as alpha in the RELEASE-NOTES file >> that accompanied it. > > Yes - and not putting -alpha in the version was a mistake. > >> From this thread, I see that the consensus is to >> call the 1.1.0 release a beta. >> >> I would therefore like to proceed with the release, with the official >> version 1.1.0-incubating, and specifically labeled as "beta" in the >> release notes. Since we are not calling it a 1.1.0-incubating-stable >> or 1.1.0-incubating-GA, we do not risk implying the stability or >> correctness of the released artifacts. > > Please, please, please go look at Maven Central. Rarely will you find > 1.1.0-GA (User's dislike that immensely). But you will find tons of > 1.1.0-beta1, 1.1.0-beta2, etc. The way people expect this is that we would > have had a 1.0.0-alpha1, 1.0.0-alpha2 and then 1.0.0-beta1, 1.0.0-beta2. We > didn't do that. We should start now. When it is considered not to be a beta > then 1.1.0 should be released.
I have no objections to doing the work if we have consensus or policy that guides it. The opinion on this thread is split and I do not want to chose one over the other. Hence am following what has been done in the project before. > > I'm having a hard time understanding why you really want to do this so > differently than what the vast majority of other projects do. For the reasons stated above - lack of consensus or guiding policy. Since you feel very strongly about this, I suggest you help establish a policy by calling a vote on this. My only request to you would be to not block this release waiting for the policy to be established. Thanks, Arvind > > Ralph >
