[DISCUSS] Make a release to be announced at ApacheCon

[mxm]

+1 for a beta release: 0.9-beta.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for an early release. It will help unblock the samoa PR that has 0.9
> dependencies.
>
> > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:44, Kostas Tzoumas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for an early milestone release. Perhaps we can call it 0.9-milestone
> or
> > so?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've reopened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1650 because
> >>> the issue is still occurring.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thursday, March 12, 2015, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Have you run the 20 builds with the new shading code? With new
> shading
> >>>> the
> >>>>> TaskManagerFailsITCase should no longer fail. If it still does, then
> >> we
> >>>>> have to look into it again.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No, rebased on Monday before shading. Let me rebase and rerun tonight.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

[Márton Balassi-3]

+1 for the early release.

I'd call it 0.9-milestone1.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for a beta release: 0.9-beta.
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1 for an early release. It will help unblock the samoa PR that has 0.9
> > dependencies.
> >
> > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:44, Kostas Tzoumas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for an early milestone release. Perhaps we can call it 0.9-milestone
> > or
> > > so?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> > > 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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I've reopened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1650
> because
> > >>> the issue is still occurring.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Thursday, March 12, 2015, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Have you run the 20 builds with the new shading code? With new
> > shading
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>> TaskManagerFailsITCase should no longer fail. If it still does,
> then
> > >> we
> > >>>>> have to look into it again.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No, rebased on Monday before shading. Let me rebase and rerun
> tonight.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

[Timo Walther-2]

+1 for a beta release. So there is no feature-freeze until the RC right?


On 26.03.2015 15:32, Márton Balassi wrote:

> +1 for the early release.
>
> I'd call it 0.9-milestone1.
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1 for a beta release: 0.9-beta.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for an early release. It will help unblock the samoa PR that has 0.9
>>> dependencies.
>>>
>>>> On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:44, Kostas Tzoumas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for an early milestone release. Perhaps we can call it 0.9-milestone
>>> or
>>>> so?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've reopened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1650
>> because
>>>>>> the issue is still occurring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 12, 2015, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you run the 20 builds with the new shading code? With new
>>> shading
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> TaskManagerFailsITCase should no longer fail. If it still does,
>> then
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> have to look into it again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, rebased on Monday before shading. Let me rebase and rerun
>> tonight.
>>>>>>
>>>

[Márton Balassi]

@Timo: No feature freeze for this, yes.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Timo Walther <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for a beta release. So there is no feature-freeze until the RC right?
>
>
>
> On 26.03.2015 15:32, Márton Balassi wrote:
>
>> +1 for the early release.
>>
>> I'd call it 0.9-milestone1.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  +1 for a beta release: 0.9-beta.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  +1 for an early release. It will help unblock the samoa PR that has 0.9
>>>> dependencies.
>>>>
>>>>  On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:44, Kostas Tzoumas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 for an early milestone release. Perhaps we can call it 0.9-milestone
>>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>>> so?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I've reopened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1650
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> because
>>>
>>>> the issue is still occurring.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On Thursday, March 12, 2015, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Have you run the 20 builds with the new shading code? With new
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> shading
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TaskManagerFailsITCase should no longer fail. If it still does,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have to look into it again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, rebased on Monday before shading. Let me rebase and rerun
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tonight.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>

[Ufuk Celebi-2]

On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> 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

[Robert Metzger]

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> 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
>

[mxm]

If we wanted to, we could still release a -milestone2 even with a
-milestone.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> 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
> >
>

[Stephan Ewen]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> 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
> >
>

[Kostas Tzoumas-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> 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
> > >
> >
>

[Robert Metzger]

I'm fine with milestone.
But I would really like to call it "milestone" instead of "M1" .. because I
actually never though about that weird version name of Jetty ... I fear
that our users would also be confused by this.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Ufuk Celebi-2]

On Thursday, March 26, 2015, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm fine with milestone.
> But I would really like to call it "milestone" instead of "M1" .. because I
> actually never though about that weird version name of Jetty ... I fear
> that our users would also be confused by this.


Same here.

[Henry Saputra]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> 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
>> > >
>> >
>>

[Stephan Ewen]

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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> 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
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

[Márton Balassi]

+1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1.

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> > 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
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

[Robert Metzger]

+1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Márton Balassi <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:01, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> > > 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
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

[mxm]

+1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1

[Ufuk Celebi-2]

On Friday, March 27, 2015, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1
>

+1

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

+1 for 0.9.0-M1 (or milestone-1)
On Mar 27, 2015 2:45 PM, "Ufuk Celebi" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Friday, March 27, 2015, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1
> >
>
> +1
>

[Kostas Tzoumas-2]

+1

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 for 0.9.0-M1 (or milestone-1)
> On Mar 27, 2015 2:45 PM, "Ufuk Celebi" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 27, 2015, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1
> > >
> >
> > +1
> >
>

[Till Rohrmann]

+1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for 0.9.0-M1 (or milestone-1)
> > On Mar 27, 2015 2:45 PM, "Ufuk Celebi" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, March 27, 2015, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for 0.9.0-milestone-1
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> >
>