Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0?
I think this discussion is getting too wide, can we tease them apart?

Do we agree we should call the forthcoming releases off
branch-0.20-security as 1.x.x?

Let me start a vote for just that.

Arun

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 15, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I agree with some prior posters that renaming the 0.20-security sustaining
> branch could be confusing.
> How about the following (pseudo-code)?
>
> ## Just before we are ready to make rc0 for release 0.20.205.1, do:
> svn copy branch-0.20-security-205 branch-1.0
> ## and actually release it from branch-1.0 as release 1.0.0
>
> ## Then, after the 1.0.0 release vote ends successfully, do:
> svn copy branch-0.20-security branch-1.1
> ## This will pick up the remaining changes done to date, which would
> ## have gone into 0.20.206.0, and will instead go into release 1.1.0,
> ## sometime in the future
>
> ## However, since branch-0.23 was just recently split from trunk, it should
> be
> ## upgraded to 2.0 in the usual way, with a rename:
> svn mv branch-0.23 branch-2.0
> ## and also rename the actual release:
> svn mv tags/release-0.23.0 tags/release-2.0.0
> ## The work currently going into the future 0.23.1 will become 2.0.1, not
> 2.1.0.
> ## Work going into trunk will become 2.1 or higher in the future.
>
> This is a concrete, actionable proposal.  In an effort to establish
> consensus, would it be appropriate to call a vote on it?
> --Matt
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2011 05:49 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>>> Are you suggesting a two part version scheme?  Ie
>>>
>>> 0.23.0 -> 2.0
>>> 0.23.1 -> 2.1
>>
>> I didn't specify.  We could either do that or:
>>
>> 0.23.0 -> 2.0.0
>> 0.23.1 -> 2.0.1
>>   ...
>> 0.24.0 -> 2.1.0
>>   ...
>>
>> I don't care which much.  Do you?
>>
>>> fwiw I'd map 0.20.200.0 to 1.0,  203.0 would be 1.3, 205.0, would be
>>> 1.5. I wouldn't rename 21 since we've abandoned it. I wouldn't rename
>>> 22 either since it both has features that are in 20x, and 20x has
>>> features not in 22, and is not yet released or stable. Seems hard to
>>> come up with a reasonable version number for it.
>>
>> This is about the fourth or fifth different proposal around these.  I'm
>> not sure things are congealing around a consensus.  I don't want to
>> stand in the way of that, but I think we might first settle the part
>> that we're nearer consensus on.
>>
>> Doug
>>