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?
Matt Foley 2011-11-16, 02:42
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
>