Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 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
Dmitriy,
I think what you are saying is something similar to alpha/beta releases.
(maybe beta1, beta2 .. is better).
So the first release could be 1.0.0_beta1. I scheme will be easier for
users to understand.
But I am not sure what the criteria for promoting a release from betaX
to general release should be.
Thanks,
Thejas
On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy wrote:
> 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
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB