If there are no objections, I'll start a vote on this proposal now. Thanks, --Konstantin
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Arun, > > I am agnostic about version numbers too, as long as the count goes up. > The discussion you are referring to is somewhat outdated, it was talking > about 2.0.4-beta, which we already passed. It is talking about producing a > series "not suitable for general consumption", which isn't correct for the > latest release 2.0.4. That discussion clearly outlined general (or > specific) frustration about breaking compatibility from top level projects. > > You are not listing new features for MR and YARN. > So it will only be about the four HDFS features Suresh proposed for 2.0.5. > As I said earlier my problem with them is that each is big enough to > destabilize the code base, and big enough to be targeted for a separate > release. The latter relates to the "streamlining" thread on general@. > I also think the proposed features will delay stable 2.x beyond the > time-frame you projected, because some of them are not implemented yet, and > Windows is in unknown to me condition, as integration builds are still not > run for it. > > If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative > proposal, which would include > - stabilization of current 2.0.4 > - making all API changes to allow freezing them post 2.0.5 > And nothing else. > > We can add new features in subsequent release (release). Potentially we > can end up in the same place as you proposed but with more certainty along > the road. > The main reason I am asking for stabilization is to make it available for > large installations such as Yahoo sooner. And this will require commitment > to compatibility as Bobby mentioned on several occasions. > > As a rule of thumb compatibility for me means that I can do a rolling > upgrade on the cluster. More formal definitions like Karthik's > Compatibility page are better. BigTop's integration testing proved to be > very productive. > > Thanks, > --Konstantin > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com>wrote: > >> Konstantin, >> >> On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: >> >> > Do you think we can call the version you proposed to release >> > 2.1.0 or 2.1.0-beta? >> > >> > The proposed new features imho do not exactly conform with the idea >> > of dot-dot release, but definitely qualify for a major number change. >> > I am just trying to avoid rather ugly 2.0.4.1 versions, which of course >> > also possible. >> >> I'm agnostic to the schemes. >> >> During the long discussion we had just 2 months ago, I proposed that >> 2.1.x be the beta series initially. >> >> The feedback and consensus was that it wasn't the right numbering scheme: >> http://s.apache.org/1j4 >> >> thanks, >> Arun >> > >
