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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # general - [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0?


+
Arun C Murthy 2011-11-14, 22:11
+
Doug Cutting 2011-11-14, 22:41
+
Mattmann, Chris A 2011-11-14, 22:47
+
Todd Papaioannou 2011-11-14, 22:47
+
Milind.Bhandarkar@... 2011-11-14, 22:44
+
Mattmann, Chris A 2011-11-14, 22:46
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-11-14, 23:01
+
Sharad Agarwal 2011-11-15, 05:37
+
Mahadev Konar 2011-11-15, 06:23
+
Owen OMalley 2011-11-15, 05:47
+
Andreas Neumann 2011-11-15, 05:56
+
Owen OMalley 2011-11-15, 06:20
+
Dhruba Borthakur 2011-11-15, 06:07
+
Steve Loughran 2011-11-15, 09:57
+
Todd Lipcon 2011-11-15, 21:43
+
Owen OMalley 2011-11-15, 22:17
+
Ted Dunning 2011-11-15, 22:25
+
Arun C Murthy 2011-11-15, 22:32
+
Luke Lu 2011-11-15, 22:40
+
Doug Cutting 2011-11-16, 01:37
+
Ahmed Radwan 2011-11-16, 01:41
+
Eli Collins 2011-11-16, 01:49
+
Doug Cutting 2011-11-16, 01:56
+
Eli Collins 2011-11-16, 02:03
+
Arun Murthy 2011-11-16, 04:20
+
Matt Foley 2011-11-16, 02:42
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-11-16, 02:47
+
Joe Stein 2011-11-16, 03:35
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-11-16, 07:26
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-11-16, 15:46
+
Scott Carey 2011-11-16, 07:06
+
Arun Murthy 2011-11-16, 04:14
+
Eli Collins 2011-11-16, 04:51
+
Joe Stein 2011-11-16, 05:37
+
Arun Murthy 2011-11-16, 05:53
+
Eli Collins 2011-11-16, 06:13
+
Arun Murthy 2011-11-16, 07:05
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-11-16, 02:06
+
Doug Cutting 2011-11-16, 17:15
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0?
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-11-16, 17:24
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:15AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 06:06 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > Are you suggesting to drop 0.22 out of the picture all together? Any
> > reason for that?
>
> By no means.  I thought that we might, as Scott Carey said, treat 0.22
> as a minor release in the 1.x series.  I'd prefer that we consistently
> rename branches (0.20.x becomes 1.0.x, 0.21.x becomes 1.1.x, etc.).

Thanks for the explanation. I see your point in 1.?.x renames. My only concern
is that it might suggest that to the users that 1.2.0 (e.g. current 0.22) is a
sort of natural continuation from 1.0.0 (current 0.20.x) and the upgrade would
be easy and automatic. Which isn't necessary the case, IMO.

Separating them in two major versions won't be sending such a message.

> We're rapidly falling into the trap of putting too much significance in
> a version number, seeking some sort of marketing boost by declaring 1.0.
>  We can sidestep this by simply dropping the leading 0. and henceforth
> referring to things as 20, 21, 22, etc.  This minimizes confusion, since
> there's no significant renaming, it gets us around the marketing issue
> of still being pre-1.0, and it keeps us from putting too much importance
> into version numbers.

I guess this might work too.

Cos
+
Scott Carey 2011-11-16, 18:15
+
Doug Cutting 2011-11-16, 19:57
+
Matt Foley 2011-11-16, 21:11
+
Owen OMalley 2011-11-16, 21:37
+
Joe Stein 2011-11-16, 21:53
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2011-11-16, 23:05
+
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-16, 23:40
+
Arun C Murthy 2011-11-17, 00:03
+
Eric Yang 2011-11-17, 00:05
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-11-17, 05:54
+
Arun C Murthy 2011-11-16, 22:43
+
Doug Cutting 2011-11-16, 23:02
+
Arun C Murthy 2011-11-16, 23:05
+
Arun C Murthy 2011-11-16, 23:13
+
sanjay Radia 2011-11-17, 01:11
+
Nathan Roberts 2011-11-16, 23:51
+
Doug Cutting 2011-11-17, 00:13
+
Scott Carey 2011-11-17, 01:37
+
Scott Carey 2011-11-17, 02:06
+
Steve Loughran 2011-11-17, 10:45
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2011-11-17, 16:33
+
Arun C Murthy 2011-11-17, 19:09
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2011-11-17, 19:31
+
Steve Loughran 2011-11-21, 11:17
+
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-17, 21:07
+
Mahadev Konar 2011-11-17, 21:12
+
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-17, 21:28
+
Alejandro Abdelnur 2011-11-17, 19:17