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

Switch to Threaded View
Pig >> mail # dev >> Next Pig release proposal


Copy link to this message
-
RE: Next Pig release proposal
I actually find this to be a bit confusing scheme. I have not seen any project or product doing something similar.

Olga

-----Original Message-----
From: Dmitriy Ryaboy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 5:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal

To be a little more concrete about what I am saying here -- I don't think we
should put a "1.0" label on any *.0 release. 0.8.1 is pretty solid; 0.9.0
has some holes, 0.9.1 is better. If we put 1.0 on what is currently being
thought of as 0.10, it will have some stability / usability issues (things
tend to show up after we make a release and people in the wild start trying
it), and those issues will make a poor impression on those who expect 1.0 to
be shiny and polished after so much time. I'm in favor of waiting a couple
of dot releases, promoting a stabilized release into 1.0, and going from
there. So, pictorially:

-- trunk --- 0.11-dev ----------0.12-dev------------------| 1.2-dev!
    \               \
     \               \ ---------------- 0.11.0 --------------------| 1.1.0!
      \
       \------- 0.10.0 ------- 0.10.1 ------- 0.10.2 --------| 1.0.0 !!

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am good with Scheme 2.
>
> We are finding a fair number of issues trying to move from Pig 0.8.1 to
> 0.9, and I don't think those issues are fixed in 10, either.. not sure that
> this "stabilization" process has happened yet.
>
> D
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Daniel Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Yes, we need a versioning scheme. There are two versioning scheme I can
>> think of:
>>
>> Scheme 1:
>> <major>.<patch>
>> <major> will be the feature rich release every 3 month
>> <patch> will be the bug fix release when necessary
>>
>> Nov release will be 1.0, Feb release will be 2.0. There will be 1.1, 2.1
>> etc
>> for bug fixes.
>>
>> Scheme 2:
>> <major>.<minor>.<patch>
>> Most of our 3 month release will be counted as <minor> release unless
>> there
>> are major user facing/disruptive changes.
>>
>> Nov release will be 1.0.0, Feb release will be 1.1.0. There will be 1.0.1,
>> 1.1.1 etc for bug fixes.
>>
>> I personally prefer scheme 2, increasing major version too frequently
>> might
>> be confusing to users. How's other folks feel?
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > just my 2 cents.
>> >
>> > I think the issue here is not 1.0 vs 0.10, but what's the versioning
>> scheme
>> > we want to use for Pig.
>> > Up to now it has been just an increasing number after a '0.' prefix,
>> > changed
>> > when the community felt it was time. I think this works well for a small
>> > project, but it is somewhat fuzzy.
>> >
>> > I like the idea of having <major>.<minor>.<patch> versions like many
>> other
>> > projects. It's a very clear and almost standard way of versioning a
>> piece
>> > of
>> > software. It has clear rules on when to change each of the numbers, and
>> > lets
>> > the user get an idea of backward compatibility at a glance.
>> >
>> > So, to conclude, I am in favor of going 1.0 (or 1.0.0) as long as we
>> decide
>> > a clear versioning policy (whichever it is).
>> > So that the 1.0 milestone would mark the beginning of our new policy.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > --
>> > Gianmarco
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 23:10, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > If one were to rewrite input and output formats to use the webhdfs://
>> > > APIs, this would not be an issue, right ?
>> > >
>> > > - milind
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 10/21/11 1:50 PM, "Santhosh Srinivasan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >If I was not clear in my earlier email, I apologize for the lack of
>> > > >clarity. I am no longer in favour of waiting for Hadoop API stability
>> > > >across Hadoop versions. It's a pipe dream.
>> > > >
>> > > >When we had PigInputFormat and PigOutputFormat, your reasoning would