I think the current state is that HBase is not as stable as Hadoop :) Hopefully 0.92 or 0.94 will fix this - then let's talk about calling it 1.0.
I'd also like to get our interfaces labeled for public/private before 1.0, as people expect that 1.0 software will be stricter about not breaking things between versions, etc. -Todd On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Stack. > From 0.94 to 1.0, the numbering makes sense. > > Let's first get 0.92 out the door :-) > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > It's possible a release of 0.20.20X (X=5 I think) as Hadoop 1.0 is >> imminent. >> > >> > The Hadoop 1.0 release is an acknowledgement of reality -- 0.20 branch >> is in production at many places. >> > >> > I know we agreed to separate HBase versioning from Hadoop versioning, >> but if we continue to number HBase as 0.X after there is a Hadoop 1.0, >> there is an implicit marketing message that we feel HBase is not as ready >> as Hadoop. >> > >> > >> > I propose that we consider, if and when Hadoop 1.0 is released, that we >> release HBase 1.0 off of the 0.92 branch. A subsequent release off of trunk >> could be 1.1 or 2.0 at the discretion of the RM and community consensus. >> > >> >> Agreed. Was thinking 0.94 could e be 1.0.0 since its getting a load >> of 0.89-fb branch forward-ports. Would have to come out right after >> 0.92 though. >> >> St.Ack >> > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
