+1 Also, accompanying the announcement with a schedule and checklist to get 3.5 to beta and final would be useful from a users PoV (and make it easier for non regular contributors to give a hand).
Cheers, Galo On 11 Sep 2015 9:36 am, "Martin Grotzke" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd prefer to have a more common sense compatible versioning rather sooner > than later. Just announce the change in the release notes and perhaps > describe versioning semantics on the web page. > > Cheers, > Martin > Am 11.09.2015 08:34 schrieb "Chris Nauroth" <[email protected]>: > > > Thanks for the pointer, Jordan. I hadn't realized that the semver spec > > covered alpha tagging like this. > > > > I think it's a good direction, but I also wonder if it would only create > > more confusion to change the convention mid-way through the 3.5 release > > stream now. Maybe we just need to take this as a lesson learned for next > > time. > > > > Do others have thoughts on this? > > > > --Chris Nauroth > > > > From: Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]>> > > Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:26 AM > > To: Chris Nauroth <[email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]>> > > Subject: Re: Question about 3.5.0 stability and versioning > > > > I was expecting that the target release would be 3.5.0 and that there > > would be a 3.5.0-alpha1, 3.5.0-alpha2, 3.5.0-beta1, etc. The semantic > > versioning spec describes similar things (http://semver.org/). > > > > -Jordan > > > > > > > > On September 10, 2015 at 12:18:19 PM, Chris Nauroth ( > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: > > > > FWIW, the -alpha suffix also is unconventional for package management. > > ZOOKEEPER-2124 shows how this caused some irritation for RPM builds. > > > > Jordan, do you have any suggestions on how we can better communicate > > "release X.Y.Z is alpha quality" to downstream consumers? The > > documentation links at zookeeper.apache.org already call out that 3.4.6 > is > > "stable". Would it be sufficient simply to label the other releases there > > as "alpha" or "API unstable" and add appropriate warnings around the > > download links? > > > > --Chris Nauroth > > > > > > > > > > On 9/10/15, 6:52 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > >More on this... > > > > > >I think you are sowing tremendous confusion with the "-alpha" suffix > > >on the releases. To my eye, when I see "3.5.0-alpha" I read "alpha > > >version of 3.5.0". But that's not what is intended. 3.5.0-alpha is > > >intended to mean "version 3.5.0 which is an alpha level release". > > >Further complicating the picture is that there is now a "3.5.0-alpha" > > >and a "3.5.1-alpha". I hadn't followed the original thread and was > > >very confused by this and I'm very close to the ZooKeeper community. > > >Imagine the confusion for the casual user. Additionally, as others > > >have pointed out, only some of the functionality is alpha. It's not as > > >if this is a complete re-write. At the end of this process there will > > >be 5 or more versions of ZK on Maven Central with various suffixes. > > >Most users will be very confused. > > > > > >On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected] > <mailto: > > [email protected]>> wrote: > > >> Hi Sam. See this thread. http://markmail.org/message/ymxliy2rrwjc2pmo > > >> > > >> 3.5.0 is an alpha release. 3.5.1 will also be an alpha release. Likely > > >> there will be a number more, as part of alphas we allow backward > > >> incompatible changes, etc... Once we reach beta we'll lock down the > > >> apis and such (again, see the above thread for more detail). > > >> > > >> Note: there seems to be some automation on github that marks things as > > >> "releases". afaik we are not doing that ourselves - those are mirrors > > >> of our internal svn repository. > > >> > > >> Patrick > > >> > > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Sam Weisberg > > >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > wrote: > > >>> Flavio, > > >>> > > >>> thanks for your reply. > > >>> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the 3.5.0 release > in > > >>> itself can be considered stable in terms of software quality, but the > > >>> feature set may change during the 3.5 maintenance cycle? If so, is it > > >>>likely > > >>> that 3.5 releases will introduce incompatible changes in terms of > > >>>ensemble > > >>> and client-server combination? > > >>> Also, would you say that that 3.5.0 and it's new features can be used > > >>>in > > >>> production? > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> Sam > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 2015-03-21 12:29, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Sam, > > >>>> > > >>>> The label "alpha" refers to an alpha release of the 3.5 branch, not > an > > >>>> alpha version of 3.5.0. We typically only have bug fixes for the > minor > > >>>> releases of a branch, and for 3.5, we have used alpha to say that > the > > >>>> release is indeed unstable and that major changes could come with > > >>>> later releases of the branch. > > >>>> > > >>>> I suppose we could have done 3.5.0-alpha, 3.5.0-beta, 3.5.0 or some > > >>>> similar sequence, but that isn't the current thinking afaict. > > >>>> > > >>>> -Flavio > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 21 Mar 2015, at 09:08, Sam Weisberg < > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi list, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I am a little confused about the versioning of the 3.5 release > > >>>>>branch. > > >>>>> When looking at the homepage, it sais the 3.5 release "is alpha > > >>>>>quality" > > >>>>> and it is suffixed with a -alpha tag. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> When I first looked at the github releases[1] however, it seams to > > >>>>> indicate that there has already been a 3.5 release candidate and a > > >>>>>3.5 > > >>>>> release. > > >>>>> In addition, the devs seem to be gearing up for a 3.5.1 release[2], > > >>>>>which > > >>>>> would be curious if there was not even a stable 3.5.0 release. > > >>>>> There is also no longer an active milestone for 3.5.0 in Jira. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Considering all that, I have a bit of trouble understanding the > > >>>>> implications of the -alpha suffix of the 3.5.0 release. > > >>>>> Can the 3.5.0 release be considered stable and is just not widely > > >>>>>used? > > >>>>> I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me a bit. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>> Sam > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/releases > > >>>>> [2] > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201502.mbox/%3 > > >>>>>CCANLc_9JktxbnYuyW2EbvFEcRoaZWMsPf38YdoM=5jlwlusz...@mail.gmail.com > > %3E<mailto:CCANLc_9JktxbnYuyW2EbvFEcRoaZWMsPf38YdoM= > > [email protected]%3E> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > >
