On 7 March 2012 15:42, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2012/3/7 Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I agree. >> > >> > Maybe we should also tag issues as 4.0-alpha, 4.0-beta in JIRA? For >> > 4.0-alpha we'll tag all the issues that are expected to change the index >> > format, and 4.0-beta all the issues that require API changes? >> > >> >> I have no opinion on the actual JIRA tagging, but I think Hoss has a >> good point that it would be better if we looked at alphas/betas as >> "real releases"... ideally our first alpha release would be exactly >> the same as our real 4.0 release, but we are just being realistic and >> at the same time marking some caveats so that users know its a big >> scary change. >> >> So I'm not sure we should intentionally try to delay/bucket any issues >> to alpha or beta, I think we should try to make it great from the >> start... these 'guarantees' are just to help increase adoption and >> testing. > > > +1, as also Simon was saying let's go fixing the blockers and start working > on the alpha release process. >
It's of course very cool if you could start by "make it great from the start", but that would take more time I would rather be realistic and start providing some tags in quick iterations. Even if it has known issues, that's acceptable for an Alpha release but at least you start getting more feedback, especially on the API which you obviously don't want to alter significantly just before the final. Regards, Sanne --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
