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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # dev >> [DISCUSSION] Release process


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process
Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> My main point was that suddenly people seem to be hot to declare something 1.0.  I'm trying to understand why [...]

My rationale for suggesting a release named 1.0 was that I prefer that
release numbers say something about compatibility.  The compatibility
rules we've used for Hadoop (which are not too different that what most
would assume about versions) are that pre-1.0 releases may break
compatibility with one another, while post-1.0 we'd only try to move
folks to new, primary APIs at major releases.  Programs written against
1.0 would run against any 1.x release, but may require modifications
before they'd run against any 2.x or 3.x release.  So a 1.0 release
implies that we have APIs that we intend to support for considerably
longer than a 0.x release.

It's now been proposed, post-fact, that the "classic" APIs in 0.20 will
be supported long-term.  So a 1.0 release with these APIs undeprecated,
would rationalize our version numbers, as we further refine their
eventual replacements, what would become the 2.0 APIs.

We've long-delayed declaring 1.0 because we were afraid to commit to
supporting a given API for a longer term.  Now folks are willing to make
that long-term commitment to an API, yet seem reluctant to call it 1.0.

I suppose there are lots of other things that folks could think that a
1.0 release implies.  I've always argued that release numbers should be
about compatibility and compatibility only.

Doug