Jonathan Hsieh 2013-01-11, 13:33
-Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 and HABSE-7290)
Andrew Purtell 2013-01-11, 16:16
Intel will be putting effort into stabilizing 0.96 for production use too.
On Friday, January 11, 2013, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> Cloudera Hat: We are customer driven when it comes to features and
> this is oft requested. 0.96 is a compatiblity breaking release and we
> have some constraints there. Snapshots is mostly an additive feature
> so it is technically possible with minor compatibility concerns.
> Apache Hat: Keeping features to new versions makes the most sense - it
> keeps stable versions stable and encourages folks to move to newer
> shinier versions. :). Ideally, with a healthy Apache project that
> releases regularly, the release schedule and feature set of
> distributions shouldn't affect the natural release cadence and feature
> set of the apache project.
> At the moment the best guess for when 0.96 gets released is unknown.
> There will be a non-trivial amount of time necessary to harden
> snapshots as well as all the other additions to that version. Its
> pretty plain to see that Cloudera and HWX are putting significant
> efforts into readying 0.96 as well.
> > Oh, I meant the 1.0.x, 1.1.x, 2.x.x, etc version. Yeah, the -beta is not
> a good idea (IMHO).
> > I have to ask the Cloudera and Hortonworks folks then: Why not wait
> until 0.96 is stable? Why backport snapshots to 0.94?
> > -- Lars
> > ________________________________
> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055
> and HABSE-7290)
> > Eventually we should switch to semantic versioning (like Hadoop).
> > The -beta stuff? Nah, at least in Hadoop, it has been arbitrarily
> applied (and contended). Lets not use Hadoop as an example. We have some
> precedent for linux-y odd is unstable, even is stable. Lets hold to it I'd
> > It also depends on the timing of 0.96.
> >>The fact that two companies want to port this to 0.94 seems to indicate
> low confidence that we can ship a stable 0.96 soon.
> > I think it is more that 0.96.0 is a singularity. Including 0.96 in a
> downstreamer's bundle only makes sense when the vendor is moving to a new
> major version. These major versions happen on a less frequent cycle. We
> just need to make sure 0.96 is out and well-baked the next time these
> cycles come around.
> > St.Ack
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-01-07, 18:07
Stack 2013-01-08, 07:44
Ted Yu 2013-01-07, 18:38
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-01-07, 18:58