When I try `rpm -i riptano-release-5-1.el6.noarch.rpm`, it just freeze. Does repository work?
2011/1/12 Michael Fortin <mi...@m410.us> > Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed replies Eric, it's much > appreciated. > > Mike > > On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Eric Evans wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 09:23 -0500, Michael Fortin wrote: > >> This my understanding of 0.* releases. > >> - They're not considered production ready by the maintainers > >> - They subject to changes that break backwards compatibility > >> - Generally poorly documented because the api is so volatile > >> - Previous releases are unsupported > >> > >> for 1.* releases > >> - The maintainer is saying this is tested and production ready, > >> sometimes also marked as Final for GA > >> - Minor releases do not break backward compatibility > >> - The major and minor release have some level of support, with open > >> source, that usually means docs and mailing lists but they should be > >> very active. > >> - thoroughly documented > > > > FWIW, your interpretation of what it means to be 1.0, is not wholly > > unique, but it's far from universal either. > > > >> Sorting through the issue tracker is a little to fine grained to get a > >> big picture view of where cassandra is going. > > > > Sorry, I should have been more clear here. > > > > The closest we have to a roadmap are the tickets that are marked as > > blocking the next release, you shouldn't have to do any digging, they're > > all available in one view here: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310865&fixfor=12314820 > > > > But, it's pretty fluid for the first few months after a new release. > > > >> And, just to be clear, I'm not questioning the maintainers approach, > >> just humbling asking for a little more clarification. Cassandra is > >> awesome, and I'm itching to use it on some production projects where I > >> think it would be a great fit, but 0.* designation scares me a little. > >> Of course, a hastily released 1.* would be worse. > > > > I understand, but what I'm saying is a "1.0" release in this context > > carries special significance that just doesn't map well to open source > > projects. And, in addition to being subjective, your criteria differs > > from that of many people. It might make things easier to just version > > some future release 1.0 and be done with it, but I'd rather be honest > > with you. > > > > This is honest: > > > > * We treated the Google code dump in 2008 as 0.1.0 (though no formal > > release was made). > > * We likewise treated the Apache code dump in 2009 as 0.2.0 (again, no > > formal release). > > * We called the first release under the Apache Incubator 0.3.0. > > * We just now released 0.7.0. > > * We maintain backward compatibility between the "minor" and "revision", > > that is 0.6.1, 0.6.2, 0.6.3, etc. > > > > This is why I said my preference would be to just drop the leading 0. > > We've been using the minor like a major, and the revision like a minor, > > (and we haven't had need for a revision). We've had 7 major releases, > > (5 if you only want to count what's happened under Apache). > > > > Also: > > > > * Most of the "maintainers" would tell you that it is production-ready, > > but then, they might be biased since most of them are running it in > > production. YMMV. > > * It is as poorly documented as most FLOSS projects. > > * We provide support through the issue tracker, mailing lists, and IRC, > > and you can purchase support contracts through Riptano. > > > > > > -- > > Eric Evans > > eev...@rackspace.com > > > >
