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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # general - Naming of Hadoop releases


+
Todd Papaioannou 2012-03-18, 05:41
+
Harsh J 2012-03-18, 06:24
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2012-03-18, 17:01
+
Todd Papaioannou 2012-03-18, 18:04
+
Owen OMalley 2012-03-19, 00:07
+
Dhruba Borthakur 2012-03-19, 18:10
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2012-03-19, 19:04
+
sanjay Radia 2012-03-19, 23:24
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2012-03-20, 06:23
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2012-03-22, 08:53
+
Milind.Bhandarkar@... 2012-03-19, 19:34
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-03-19, 21:47
+
Milind.Bhandarkar@... 2012-03-19, 22:00
+
Doug Cutting 2012-03-19, 21:56
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-03-19, 22:38
+
Scott Carey 2012-03-20, 18:21
+
Doug Cutting 2012-03-19, 23:18
+
Eric Baldeschwieler 2012-03-20, 06:47
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-03-19, 23:38
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2012-03-19, 23:44
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2012-03-19, 23:29
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-03-19, 23:39
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2012-03-20, 06:02
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-03-20, 17:17
+
Scott Carey 2012-03-20, 18:29
+
Chris Douglas 2012-03-19, 23:28
+
sanjay Radia 2012-03-20, 00:23
+
Chris A Mattmann 2012-03-19, 23:43
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2012-03-20, 06:16
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Naming of Hadoop releases
Konstantin Boudnik 2012-03-20, 00:36
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:04PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> Hadoop naming is definitely confusing. And having Hadoop-1 did not
> make it less confusing for users.
>
> > Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and released)
>
> It was released on November 29, 2011.
> eBay is actively using it as of today.
>
> If the goal of renaming branches is to make things less confusing
> about Hadoop, then I agree with people saying we should do a
> simultaneous rename of the branches. That is
> Current 0.22 -> 2
> Current 0.23 -> 3
>
> It almost sounds like release .22 does not deserve a whole number,
> only a fraction. But having .22 renamed to 1.5 creates a confusion
> that it belongs to Hadoop-1 line, which is not exactly the message we
> want to send out.
> Also I don't know what the number of commits reflects, and whether it
> is good or not to have many for a particular release.
>
> If the community decides to rename .22 to 2 I will be glad to work on it.

Count me in

Cos

> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Todd Papaioannou
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >
> >> 9.22 can't be considered as 1.5 because it is the major release from 1.0 (old
> >> 0.20.x). Besides, by declaring it as 1.5 we'll be planting future confusion of
> >> the same sort that happened around 0.20* line.
> >>
> >> And last but not least, the same ═discussion has happened in the past around
> >> 1.0 release time like http://is.gd/x1fVqu
> >
> > Yes I remember it well, but AFAIC there was no clear decision on 0.22 or 0.23. There were competing proposals and opinions and basically what happened was that we punted the decision on anything other than 0.20->1.0 until a later date. But, that later date is now approaching and we continue to call the current release in question 0.23. Hence my original email.
> >
> > Personally, I do not believe 0.22 is sufficiently major to call it 2.0 and push 0.23 to 3.0. But that's just my $0.02. I don't feel strongly enough to worry about what the outcome is.
> >
> > What I _do_ care strongly about is that we get some resolution and stop using 0.23 as a release name. It's confusing to the market and the customer base, and while we have made great progress in simplifying things with the 1.0 release moniker, we need to continue to make progress.
> >
> > ToddP
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Cos
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:41PM, Todd Papaioannou wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> With the upcoming release of 0.23, isn't it about time that we started calling 0.23 "Hadoop 2.0" instead?
> >>>
> >>> While the numbering system may make sense to everyone here, to the rest of the world it's going to be hella confusing for 0.23 to come out after Hadoop 1.0 was released. Since 0.23 has MR2 in it I think that it would make sense to call it 2.0. Also, I think would really help with the brand awareness/perception of the project in the wider customer audience.
> >>>
> >>> I know there are some other potential releases out there too, so my overall suggestion would be:
> >>>
> >>> Current 1.X -> Remains 1.x (as new bug fix releases are released)
> >>> Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and released)
> >>> Current 0.23 -> Gets renamed to 2.0
> >>>
> >>> Remember, a large part of the reason for renaming 0.20.xx to 1.0 was to make project progress more understandable to the rest of the world. We should ensure we don't regress with the next major release.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> ToddP
> >>>
> >