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. > > Jon. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:36 PM, lars hofhansl > <la...@apache.org<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Stack <st...@duboce.net <javascript:;>> > > To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org <javascript:;>>; lars hofhansl > <la...@apache.org <javascript:;>> > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:19 PM > > Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 > and HABSE-7290) > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:34 PM, lars hofhansl > > <la...@apache.org<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > 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 > say. > > > > > > 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 > // j...@cloudera.com <javascript:;> > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
