Okay, to how about we make this <dependency> <groupId>org.apache.flink</groupId> <artifactId>flink-core</artifactId> <version>0.9.0-milestone-1</version> </dependency>
I think it is common that milestones have numbers. There is no such thing as "the" milestone. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, always prefer to get it with consensus that VOTE > > I am fine with either. > > - Henry > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org> > wrote: > > The ASF press team wants to announce next week, so a 3-day vote right now > > might cancel the subject line of this thread :-) > > > > Perhaps we can reach consensus in the DISCUSS thread or have a 24-hour > vote? > > > > I agree with Stephan on 0.9.0.M1 (or 0.9.0-m1 or whatever), as it seems > > that other open source projects are using this naming scheme. > > > > Kostas > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> I think "Milestone" pretty much says that we have some crucial things in > >> there, but not all. "Beta" in comparison, has an "immature early > version" > >> connotation. > >> > >> We are, for example, using a milestone 1 version of Jetty for the Web > >> Frontend, so that is a pretty standard thing, in my opinion: > >> > >> <dependency> > >> <groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId> > >> <artifactId>jetty-server</artifactId> > >> <version>8.0.0.M1</version> > >> </dependency> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Looks like we need to vote on 0.9-beta or 0.9-milestone. > >> > > >> > Can we find consensus whether to add a 1 after the name? -beta1 or > >> > -milestone1. > >> > Adding a 1 allows us to create a second beta/milestone release. > >> > > >> > I'm against adding a 1. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Two weeks have passed since we've discussed the 0.9 release the > last > >> > > time. > >> > > > > >> > > > The ApacheCon is in 18 days from now. > >> > > > If we want, we can also release a "0.9.0-beta" release that > contains > >> > > known > >> > > > bugs, but allows our users to try out the new features easily > >> (because > >> > > they > >> > > > are part of a release). The vote for such a release would be > mainly > >> > about > >> > > > the legal aspects of the release rather than the stability. So I > >> > suspect > >> > > > that the vote will go through much quicker. > >> > > > >> > > +1 for 0.9-beta > >> > > > >> > > >> >
