I dont see why odd/even is better than adding -dev/-beta suffix, which explicitly indicates that this is a development release, rather than the user having to consult to documentation to understand it. But agreed with John in that we don't want to go into a never ending discussion of which versioning schema to go. If historically, 0.89/0.90 worked well, we might as well go with it.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I wrote up some stuff on this back in the 0.89 timeframe here: > http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Hbase/HBaseVersions > > Could probably do with a refresh of the text, but should mostly still > apply. > > -Todd > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I propose to avoid -dev or -beta, and stick with the even/odd scheme we > > used for 0.89. We also appended a date stamp instead of minor version, > e.g. > > 0.89.20100726. Documenting how this departure from our usual numbering > > signifies a "developer preview", or whatever we'd like to call it, sounds > > like a good idea. > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > >> I think that branching scheme makes sense. > >> > >> We should probably define the intent of even/odd versioning and compat > >> rules on the webpage (the how to release instructions and on the > >> download links) if we are going to do it so we don't have to explain > >> it over and over. If we do this ahead of time, everyone should have > >> the same expectations knows what this means. > >> > >> Also, we could consider probably playing some games with adding -dev > >> or -beta after an odd version number. I say this with some > >> trepidation - over in Hadoop-land they there are some contentious > >> discussions about version numbering and naming that I'd personally > >> like to avoid. > >> > >> Jon. > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> How do we want to run it? Branch 0.96 and then 0.95s are branched > from > >> >> 0.96? (As in the past, 0.95.0, 0.95.1, etc., would come with no > >> guarantees > >> >> other than it basically works and it is allowed that 0.95.1 may not > be > >> >> compatible with 0.95.0, etc.). > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > - Andy > >> > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > >> > (via Tom White) > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> // j...@cloudera.com > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
