incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Date Sun, 22 Mar 2015 04:40:26 GMT
On 22.03.2015 00:09, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <> wrote:
>>>> The new 1.0 release with corrected headers will be
>>>> submitted for PPMC vote on Monday.
>>> Hmm, I'm confused.  This is 1.0-RC3.  I would ordinarily expect that
>>> to become 1.0 once the release vote succeeds.  While Apache isn't
>>> going to force a particular versioning scheme on you, I don't think
>>> you can put out two releases with the same version number.  That would
>>> result in identically named artifacts with different content and
>>> security mechanisms going berzerk as a consequence.
>> This was intended to be a public RC3 release. If it was to pass the vote,
>> then the official release would also have 1.0-RC3 version.
>> We wanted to have community to play with the RC3 release for a bit until we
>> release the final 1.0 release in a week or two.
> Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms with
> precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal
> distinction between "released" and "unreleased" code, this is
> extremely confusing.  Having something named "RC" which is also an
> official Apache release is... gah, it makes my brain hurt.
> Please consider adopting different terminology in the future --
> "alpha", "beta", "golden master candidate / GM candidate", etc.

Nonsense. Subversion has been making public candidate releases for 1.x.0
for years and we've not seen any of our users' heads explode yet. It's
just like a public beta but with stronger expectations wrt stability.
"Release candidate" just means "we believe it will become 1.0 but we may
still have to tweak it a bit." Our users don't care if there's a
recommended internal process that also mentions 'release candidate' in a
different context.

The distinction between released and unreleased lies in a) process and
b) location of the bits. I think you're confusing process stages with
version numbering. I see no reasonable basis for imposing some
particular version numbering or release naming scheme on any project.

-- Brane

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message