You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@dolphinscheduler.apache.org by SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org> on 2025/02/23 03:10:15 UTC
Fwd: Discussion of new version release
sorry, I forgot to cc dev.
--
Best Wishes
ZiHao
---------- Forwarded message ---------
发件人： SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>
Date: 2025年2月23日周日 10:55
Subject: Discussion of new version release
To: <pr...@dolphinscheduler.apache.org>
Hi community,
It has been six months since the release of version 3.2.2. We plan
to release the new version before March 30th. Because we have made great
changes and reconstructions in the new version, there are also many
incompatible changes. So our new version is called 3.3.0-release according
to the previous habit, or is it called 3.3.0-alpha-release?
--
Best Wishes
ZiHao
Re: Discussion of new version release
Posted by SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
Thanks all for these opinions. I will use 3.3.0-alpha as the name of next
version.
--
Best Wishes
ZiHao
Jay Chung <zh...@gmail.com> 于2025年3月28日周五 00:20写道：
> Hi all
>
> I change my opinion from 3.3.0 to 3.3.0-alpha according to Wenjun's
> information.
>
> If we are not sure it is stable enough, we should use the alpha suffix and
> let our users know about that.
>
> and what is your opinion I have not see that Zihao
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:51 PM David Zollo <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Zihao for preparing for the new release.
> >
> > I think `3.3.0-alpha` is better, considering that there are too many
> > changes in the architecture.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > ---------------
> > David
> > Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidzollo
> > Twitter: @WorkflowEasy <https://twitter.com/WorkflowEasy>
> > ---------------
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:03 AM wenjun <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Zihao prepare for this release.
> > > I tend to use `3.3.0-alpha-release`, since it is high probability that
> > this
> > > release might have some serious problems in some feature. It would be
> > > better to announce it in the release,
> > > We can get more feedback and make it stable from user POC.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:00 PM Jay Chung <zh...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Zihao bring this out and looking forward to the new minor
> > release.
> > > >
> > > > I think 3.3.0(without 3.3.0-alpha) is ok for me, personally, if we
> > > consider
> > > > the **main function of our code to be stable**
> > > >
> > > > I have released version 3.0.0-alpha but is not happy with that. Not
> > many
> > > > users for that version, and we have to continue releasing the 3.0.0
> > base
> > > on
> > > > 3.0.0-alpha.
> > > > For that example, I think the process from 3.0.0-alpha -> 3.0.0 is
> the
> > > same
> > > > as 3.0.0 -> 3.0.1, but the 'alpha' suffix ending will cause user
> > distrust
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:11 AM SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > sorry, I forgot to cc dev.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Wishes
> > > > > ZiHao
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > > 发件人： SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>
> > > > > Date: 2025年2月23日周日 10:55
> > > > > Subject: Discussion of new version release
> > > > > To: <pr...@dolphinscheduler.apache.org>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi community,
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been six months since the release of version 3.2.2. We plan
> > > > > to release the new version before March 30th. Because we have made
> > > great
> > > > > changes and reconstructions in the new version, there are also many
> > > > > incompatible changes. So our new version is called 3.3.0-release
> > > > according
> > > > > to the previous habit, or is it called 3.3.0-alpha-release?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Wishes
> > > > > ZiHao
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Wish
> > > > —Jay Chung
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best Wish
> —Jay Chung
>
Re: Discussion of new version release
Posted by Jay Chung <zh...@gmail.com>.
Hi all
I change my opinion from 3.3.0 to 3.3.0-alpha according to Wenjun's
information.
If we are not sure it is stable enough, we should use the alpha suffix and
let our users know about that.
and what is your opinion I have not see that Zihao
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:51 PM David Zollo <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Zihao for preparing for the new release.
>
> I think `3.3.0-alpha` is better, considering that there are too many
> changes in the architecture.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> ---------------
> David
> Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidzollo
> Twitter: @WorkflowEasy <https://twitter.com/WorkflowEasy>
> ---------------
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:03 AM wenjun <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Zihao prepare for this release.
> > I tend to use `3.3.0-alpha-release`, since it is high probability that
> this
> > release might have some serious problems in some feature. It would be
> > better to announce it in the release,
> > We can get more feedback and make it stable from user POC.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:00 PM Jay Chung <zh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Zihao bring this out and looking forward to the new minor
> release.
> > >
> > > I think 3.3.0(without 3.3.0-alpha) is ok for me, personally, if we
> > consider
> > > the **main function of our code to be stable**
> > >
> > > I have released version 3.0.0-alpha but is not happy with that. Not
> many
> > > users for that version, and we have to continue releasing the 3.0.0
> base
> > on
> > > 3.0.0-alpha.
> > > For that example, I think the process from 3.0.0-alpha -> 3.0.0 is the
> > same
> > > as 3.0.0 -> 3.0.1, but the 'alpha' suffix ending will cause user
> distrust
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:11 AM SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > sorry, I forgot to cc dev.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Wishes
> > > > ZiHao
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > 发件人： SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>
> > > > Date: 2025年2月23日周日 10:55
> > > > Subject: Discussion of new version release
> > > > To: <pr...@dolphinscheduler.apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi community,
> > > >
> > > > It has been six months since the release of version 3.2.2. We plan
> > > > to release the new version before March 30th. Because we have made
> > great
> > > > changes and reconstructions in the new version, there are also many
> > > > incompatible changes. So our new version is called 3.3.0-release
> > > according
> > > > to the previous habit, or is it called 3.3.0-alpha-release?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Wishes
> > > > ZiHao
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Wish
> > > —Jay Chung
> > >
> >
>
--
Best Wish
—Jay Chung
Re: Discussion of new version release
Posted by David Zollo <da...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Zihao for preparing for the new release.
I think `3.3.0-alpha` is better, considering that there are too many
changes in the architecture.
Best Regards
---------------
David
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidzollo
Twitter: @WorkflowEasy <https://twitter.com/WorkflowEasy>
---------------
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:03 AM wenjun <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Zihao prepare for this release.
> I tend to use `3.3.0-alpha-release`, since it is high probability that this
> release might have some serious problems in some feature. It would be
> better to announce it in the release,
> We can get more feedback and make it stable from user POC.
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:00 PM Jay Chung <zh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Zihao bring this out and looking forward to the new minor release.
> >
> > I think 3.3.0(without 3.3.0-alpha) is ok for me, personally, if we
> consider
> > the **main function of our code to be stable**
> >
> > I have released version 3.0.0-alpha but is not happy with that. Not many
> > users for that version, and we have to continue releasing the 3.0.0 base
> on
> > 3.0.0-alpha.
> > For that example, I think the process from 3.0.0-alpha -> 3.0.0 is the
> same
> > as 3.0.0 -> 3.0.1, but the 'alpha' suffix ending will cause user distrust
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:11 AM SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > sorry, I forgot to cc dev.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Wishes
> > > ZiHao
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > 发件人： SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>
> > > Date: 2025年2月23日周日 10:55
> > > Subject: Discussion of new version release
> > > To: <pr...@dolphinscheduler.apache.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi community,
> > >
> > > It has been six months since the release of version 3.2.2. We plan
> > > to release the new version before March 30th. Because we have made
> great
> > > changes and reconstructions in the new version, there are also many
> > > incompatible changes. So our new version is called 3.3.0-release
> > according
> > > to the previous habit, or is it called 3.3.0-alpha-release?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Wishes
> > > ZiHao
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Wish
> > —Jay Chung
> >
>
Re: Discussion of new version release
Posted by wenjun <we...@apache.org>.
Thanks Zihao prepare for this release.
I tend to use `3.3.0-alpha-release`, since it is high probability that this
release might have some serious problems in some feature. It would be
better to announce it in the release,
We can get more feedback and make it stable from user POC.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:00 PM Jay Chung <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Zihao bring this out and looking forward to the new minor release.
>
> I think 3.3.0(without 3.3.0-alpha) is ok for me, personally, if we consider
> the **main function of our code to be stable**
>
> I have released version 3.0.0-alpha but is not happy with that. Not many
> users for that version, and we have to continue releasing the 3.0.0 base on
> 3.0.0-alpha.
> For that example, I think the process from 3.0.0-alpha -> 3.0.0 is the same
> as 3.0.0 -> 3.0.1, but the 'alpha' suffix ending will cause user distrust
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:11 AM SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > sorry, I forgot to cc dev.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Wishes
> > ZiHao
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > 发件人： SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>
> > Date: 2025年2月23日周日 10:55
> > Subject: Discussion of new version release
> > To: <pr...@dolphinscheduler.apache.org>
> >
> >
> > Hi community,
> >
> > It has been six months since the release of version 3.2.2. We plan
> > to release the new version before March 30th. Because we have made great
> > changes and reconstructions in the new version, there are also many
> > incompatible changes. So our new version is called 3.3.0-release
> according
> > to the previous habit, or is it called 3.3.0-alpha-release?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Wishes
> > ZiHao
> >
>
>
> --
> Best Wish
> —Jay Chung
>
Re: Discussion of new version release
Posted by Jay Chung <zh...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Zihao bring this out and looking forward to the new minor release.
I think 3.3.0(without 3.3.0-alpha) is ok for me, personally, if we consider
the **main function of our code to be stable**
I have released version 3.0.0-alpha but is not happy with that. Not many
users for that version, and we have to continue releasing the 3.0.0 base on
3.0.0-alpha.
For that example, I think the process from 3.0.0-alpha -> 3.0.0 is the same
as 3.0.0 -> 3.0.1, but the 'alpha' suffix ending will cause user distrust
On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:11 AM SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> sorry, I forgot to cc dev.
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes
> ZiHao
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> 发件人： SbloodyS <zi...@apache.org>
> Date: 2025年2月23日周日 10:55
> Subject: Discussion of new version release
> To: <pr...@dolphinscheduler.apache.org>
>
>
> Hi community,
>
> It has been six months since the release of version 3.2.2. We plan
> to release the new version before March 30th. Because we have made great
> changes and reconstructions in the new version, there are also many
> incompatible changes. So our new version is called 3.3.0-release according
> to the previous habit, or is it called 3.3.0-alpha-release?
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes
> ZiHao
>
--
Best Wish
—Jay Chung