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?
And once again - 0.22 seems to be forgotten for an unexplained reason.

I urge to stick to original Arun's proposal and use 0.22 as 2.0
With the correction I like the following proposal.

Cos

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 06:42PM, Matt Foley 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
> >