You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ratis.apache.org by Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com> on 2017/03/22 23:10:58 UTC
[DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Hi,
I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
Tsz-Wo
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com>.
Just have successfully generated and uploaded all the artifacts for
Apache Ratis 0.1.0-alpha rc0. Will call a vote in a separated thread.
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/0.1.0-alpha/rc0/
Thanks.
Nicholas
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After a short list of sub-tasks under RATIS-53, we are very close to
> have our first 0.1.0-alpha release. We may be able to call a vote in
> a week or so.
>
> Again, please let me know if you like to include any particular items
> to the release.
>
> Thanks for the support!
> Nicholas
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks a lot for the supporting, Let's roll our first release. I
>> will start preparing it. I guess we don't have any particular
>> features need to be included in it (please let me know if I am wrong).
>> However, we still have to make sure the license are fine and the
>> release artifact can be built. Will file a JIRA.
>>
>> Nicholas
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Jing Zhao <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Jitendra Pandey <ji...@hortonworks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 0.1.0-alpha will be better. Three digit versions are better to distinguish
>>>> major, minor and maintenance releases.
>>>>
>>>> On 3/23/17, 2:08 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >How about the versioning? Should we start with 0.1-alpha or
>>>> >0.1.0-alpha? The latter seems better.
>>>> >
>>>> >Tsz-Wo
>>>> >
>>>> >On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >> +1
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
>>>> >>wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
>>>> >>> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Enis
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer
>>>> >>><ae...@hortonworks.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via
>>>> >>> CBlock
>>>> >>> > and Ozone.
>>>> >>> > --Anu
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > >Hi,
>>>> >>> > >
>>>> >>> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
>>>> >>> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
>>>> >>> > >
>>>> >>> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
>>>> >>> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
>>>> >>> > >
>>>> >>> > >Tsz-Wo
>>>> >>> > >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
After a short list of sub-tasks under RATIS-53, we are very close to
have our first 0.1.0-alpha release. We may be able to call a vote in
a week or so.
Again, please let me know if you like to include any particular items
to the release.
Thanks for the support!
Nicholas
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the supporting, Let's roll our first release. I
> will start preparing it. I guess we don't have any particular
> features need to be included in it (please let me know if I am wrong).
> However, we still have to make sure the license are fine and the
> release artifact can be built. Will file a JIRA.
>
> Nicholas
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Jing Zhao <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Jitendra Pandey <ji...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 0.1.0-alpha will be better. Three digit versions are better to distinguish
>>> major, minor and maintenance releases.
>>>
>>> On 3/23/17, 2:08 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >How about the versioning? Should we start with 0.1-alpha or
>>> >0.1.0-alpha? The latter seems better.
>>> >
>>> >Tsz-Wo
>>> >
>>> >On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >> +1
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
>>> >>wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
>>> >>> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Enis
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer
>>> >>><ae...@hortonworks.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via
>>> >>> CBlock
>>> >>> > and Ozone.
>>> >>> > --Anu
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > >Hi,
>>> >>> > >
>>> >>> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
>>> >>> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
>>> >>> > >
>>> >>> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
>>> >>> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
>>> >>> > >
>>> >>> > >Tsz-Wo
>>> >>> > >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Hugo Louro <hm...@gmail.com>.
+1 for format 0.1.0-alpha
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the supporting, Let's roll our first release. I
> will start preparing it. I guess we don't have any particular
> features need to be included in it (please let me know if I am wrong).
> However, we still have to make sure the license are fine and the
> release artifact can be built. Will file a JIRA.
>
> Nicholas
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Jing Zhao <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Jitendra Pandey <
> jitendra@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 0.1.0-alpha will be better. Three digit versions are better to
> distinguish
> >> major, minor and maintenance releases.
> >>
> >> On 3/23/17, 2:08 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >How about the versioning? Should we start with 0.1-alpha or
> >> >0.1.0-alpha? The latter seems better.
> >> >
> >> >Tsz-Wo
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
> >> >>> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Enis
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer
> >> >>><ae...@hortonworks.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage
> via
> >> >>> CBlock
> >> >>> > and Ozone.
> >> >>> > --Anu
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > >Hi,
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects
> can
> >> >>> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability.
> We
> >> >>> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > >Tsz-Wo
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com>.
Thanks a lot for the supporting, Let's roll our first release. I
will start preparing it. I guess we don't have any particular
features need to be included in it (please let me know if I am wrong).
However, we still have to make sure the license are fine and the
release artifact can be built. Will file a JIRA.
Nicholas
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Jing Zhao <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Jitendra Pandey <ji...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 0.1.0-alpha will be better. Three digit versions are better to distinguish
>> major, minor and maintenance releases.
>>
>> On 3/23/17, 2:08 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How about the versioning? Should we start with 0.1-alpha or
>> >0.1.0-alpha? The latter seems better.
>> >
>> >Tsz-Wo
>> >
>> >On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
>> >>> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
>> >>>
>> >>> Enis
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer
>> >>><ae...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via
>> >>> CBlock
>> >>> > and Ozone.
>> >>> > --Anu
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >Hi,
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
>> >>> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
>> >>> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >Tsz-Wo
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Jing Zhao <ji...@apache.org>.
+1
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Jitendra Pandey <ji...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
> 0.1.0-alpha will be better. Three digit versions are better to distinguish
> major, minor and maintenance releases.
>
> On 3/23/17, 2:08 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >How about the versioning? Should we start with 0.1-alpha or
> >0.1.0-alpha? The latter seems better.
> >
> >Tsz-Wo
> >
> >On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
> >>> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
> >>>
> >>> Enis
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer
> >>><ae...@hortonworks.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via
> >>> CBlock
> >>> > and Ozone.
> >>> > --Anu
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >Hi,
> >>> > >
> >>> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
> >>> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
> >>> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Tsz-Wo
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Jitendra Pandey <ji...@hortonworks.com>.
0.1.0-alpha will be better. Three digit versions are better to distinguish
major, minor and maintenance releases.
On 3/23/17, 2:08 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How about the versioning? Should we start with 0.1-alpha or
>0.1.0-alpha? The latter seems better.
>
>Tsz-Wo
>
>On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
>>> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
>>>
>>> Enis
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer
>>><ae...@hortonworks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via
>>> CBlock
>>> > and Ozone.
>>> > --Anu
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >Hi,
>>> > >
>>> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
>>> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
>>> > >
>>> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
>>> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
>>> > >
>>> > >Tsz-Wo
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@gmail.com>.
How about the versioning? Should we start with 0.1-alpha or
0.1.0-alpha? The latter seems better.
Tsz-Wo
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
>> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
>>
>> Enis
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer <ae...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via
>> CBlock
>> > and Ozone.
>> > --Anu
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Hi,
>> > >
>> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
>> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
>> > >
>> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
>> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
>> > >
>> > >Tsz-Wo
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
> process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
>
> Enis
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer <ae...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via
> CBlock
> > and Ozone.
> > --Anu
> >
> >
> > On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
> > >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
> > >
> > >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
> > >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
> > >
> > >Tsz-Wo
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good. But we have to get the licenses and the rest of release
process in line (tarballs, etc). Should be doable.
Enis
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Anu Engineer <ae...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
> +1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via CBlock
> and Ozone.
> --Anu
>
>
> On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
> >start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
> >
> >The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
> >should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
> >
> >Tsz-Wo
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 0.1-alpha release
Posted by Anu Engineer <ae...@hortonworks.com>.
+1, good idea. Early use in SCM will give some real world usage via CBlock and Ozone.
--Anu
On 3/22/17, 4:10 PM, "Tsz Wo Sze" <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I propose to release 0.1-alpha so that the downstream projects can
>start integrating ratis. One example is HDFS-11519.
>
>The release is in alpha quality with no guarantee on stability. We
>should add such warning in the README. What do you think?
>
>Tsz-Wo
>