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?
+1 on Matt's proposal.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support giving all three active code branches a clean start, on an equal
> footing:
>
> - The next release of 0.20-security (formerly expected as "0.20.205.1") to
> be 1.0.0, establishing branch-1.0
> - The next release of 0.22 to be 2.0.0, establishing branch-2.0
> - The recent release of 0.23.0 to be 3.0.0, establishing branch-3.0,
>    from which the formerly expected "0.23.1" may be released as 3.0.1
> - All three code branches to obey the established major.minor.patch
> versioning rules going forward.
> - So the next release from trunk to be 3.1.0 or 4.0.0, at the choice of the
> then release manager, and the pleasure of the community.
>
> Regards,
> --Matt
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2011 10:15 AM, Scott Carey wrote:
>> > IMO what is important from the development and maintenance perspective is
>> > the _meaning_ of the
>> > major.minor.patch numbers as described in my previous message.
>> >
>> > If a minor version number bump means that it is a superset of the
>> previous
>> > release and is backwards compatible, then that requirement on its own
>> > answers whether 0.22 can become 1.1, or if it must be a 2.0 release.
>> >
>> > Whether hadoop starts using a new meaning for major.minor.patch is what
>> is
>> > of interest to me; starting at 1.x.y or 20.x.y or 999.x.y is marketing.
>>
>> Scott, this is a great point.  Thanks for making it.
>>
>> > The version number is completely meaningless on its own, pure marketing.
>> > However, if the numbers gain meaning through a clear definition of what
>> > the major.minor.patch numbers signify, then there is meaning and
>> structure
>> > going forward.
>> > The current state of affairs seems to be:
>> > major:  always 0
>> > minor:  potentially big changes; almost always breaks wire compatibility;
>> > occasionally breaks API backwards compatibility
>> > minor:  typically bug fixes only; 'bug fix' not well defined; almost
>> never
>> > breaks API or wire compatibility
>>
>> Long ago I proposed such rules for Hadoop releases at:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap
>>
>> These state that pre-1.0 releases behave roughly as above.
>>
>> > I think the community can decide two things independently:
>> >
>> > - Should 0.20.20x be renamed 1.0.y ?  (perhaps not, perhaps 0.23 should
>> be
>> > 1.0 and the others left alone).
>> > - Should hadoop adopt a new clear definition of major.minor.patch number
>> > significance?
>>
>> Would you care to call a vote on one or both of these?
>>
>> > example proposal:
>> > * major version number increment: signifies breaks in API backwards
>> > compatibility and/or major architecture overhauls.
>> > * minor version number increment: signifies possible API changes, but
>> > maintains API backwards compatibility.  Wire compatibility may break (see
>> > release notes).  Included functionality is a superset of previous minor
>> > release.
>> > * patch version number increment: signifies a release where all
>> > improvements are fully backwards compatible with the previous patch
>> > version, including wire format.
>>
>> This is also similar to what the Roadmap wiki page indicates for
>> post-1.0 releases.
>>
>> Renaming things after the fact to try to make them consistent when the
>> prior rules weren't consistently followed is not easy.  Instead we might
>> better focus on rules that we intend to obey for releases going forward
>> and then obey them.
>>
>> > Whatever the meaning of the numbers turns out to be will dictate whether
>> > releases after a 1.0.x need to be 2.0.x or can be 1.1.x
>>
>> Good point.  The most accurate approach would probably be to call each
>> existing branch a distinct major release.  Dropping the leading zero
>> would reduce confusion and avoid marketing but would still combine
>> 0.20.x and 0.20.20x which perhaps ought to be considered separate major
>> releases.  For me this is however a reasonable tradeoff since we're