This is how voting for releases works. RC designates that build is under vote.
--Yakov 2015-12-01 12:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <akuznet...@gridgain.com>: > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ??? > > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number? > > Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me... > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Guys, > > > > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion that we > > had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due to many > > reasons. > > > > I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and the > > advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper way. > > > > Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results on our > > project wiki. > > > > 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process, but point > > and/or patch releases may omit this step. > > > > 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming release gets > > 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that build/deployment > > procedures work and TC is in green state. > > > > 3. EA version names should be the following: > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1 > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2 > > * ... > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15 > > > > Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive. > > > > 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have for release > > procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be submitted and > after > > approval "-rc1" part gets stripped. > > > > 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I know that > > there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning for > opinions, > > but from my standpoint this will save us from managing additional repos > and > > make everything transparent. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > -- > Alexey Kuznetsov > GridGain Systems > www.gridgain.com >
