I don't think that 1.0 release is expected to have major increase in functionality, in fact I strongly disagree with this. Major release is supposed to be stable.
With 0.14, we have a good evidence of use both in the community, and releases within the platforms by major vendors that caused bugs (including critical ones) to be found and fixed. That makes 0.14.1 patch release a very good candidate for 1.0 release. We should not release 1.0 off 0.15 until there's* similarly good evidence *of use by the larger community, and bug fixing period. If we cannot agree on making 0.14.1 (2/3...) 1.0 (for which there's no real reason IMHO, confusion argument is completely bogus both because there isn't any - we will spell loud and clear that 1.0 is a the stable release and 0.15 can becomes 1.1, and because users don't follow version intricacies that closely anyway), then I feel we will need to go to 0.15.1/2/3. But we'd need evidence of use and stabilization before we proceed with 15-based 1.0. However, imho cutting 1.0 from 0.14.1 is completely acceptable. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Xuefu Zhang <xzh...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Thejas/Alan, > > From all the argument, I think there was an assumption that the proposed > 1.0 release will be imminent and 0.15 will happen far after that. Based on > that assumption, 0.15 will become 1.1, which is greater in scope than 1.0. > However, this assumption may not be true. The confusion will be significant > if 0.15 is released early as 0.15 before 0.14.1 is released as 1.0. > > Another concern is that, the proposed release of 1.0 is a subset of of > Hive's functionality, and for major releases users are expecting major > improvement in functionality as well as stability. Mutating from 0.14.1 > release seems falling short in that expectation. > > Having said that, I'd think it makes more sense to release 0.15 as 0.15, > and later we release 1.0 as the major release that supersedes any previous > releases. That will fulfill the expectations of a major release. > > Thanks, > Xuefu > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Alan Gates <ga...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > > I had one clarifying question for Brock and Xuefu. Was your proposal to > > still call the branch from trunk you are planning in a few days 0.15 (and > > hence release it as 0.15) and have 1.0 be a later release? Or did you > want > > to call what is now 0.15 1.0? If you wanted 1.0 to be post 0.15, are you > > ok with stipulating that the next release from trunk after 0.15 (what > would > > have been 0.16) is 1.0? > > > > Alan. > > > > Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> > > January 22, 2015 at 12:04 > > Brock, Xuefu, > > > > We seem to have trouble reaching to a consensus here. (Please see my > > arguments why I don't see this causing confusions, and let me know if > > it changes your opinion). > > How should we move forward ? Do you think we need to go through a > > formal vote regarding the release plan as per hive by-laws ? > > > > > > Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> > > January 22, 2015 at 10:38 > > I don't see any reasons for confusion. > > From a user perspective, 1.0 is going to have a super set of changes of > > 0.14. > > 1.1 (based on planned 0.15 release) will have a super set of changes in > > 1.0 . > > > > > > Xuefu Zhang <xzh...@cloudera.com> > > January 21, 2015 at 22:47 > > I strongly believe that the concept of 1.0 out of a branch as proposed is > > creating the greatest confusion in the community. If for any reason that > > 1.0 cannot be cut from the trunk, that means that we are not ready and so > > shall wait until so before considering such a release. Thus, I'd -1 on > this > > proposal. > > > > Thanks, > > Xuefu > > > > > > Gopal V <gop...@apache.org> > > January 21, 2015 at 22:29 > > On 1/21/15, 7:09 PM, Brock Noland wrote: > > > > Too be clear I strongly feel creating 1.0 from 0.14 will be confusing. In > > fact it's already crrated confusion amongst folks on this list. > > Furthermore > > 1.0 should be created from trunk and be a superset of previous releases. > > > > > > I don't think there is any confusion over that - 1.0 is a long-term > > maintenance which is going to be a super-set of all *critical fixes* made > > from here on (emphasis). > > > > In fact, a long-term support release should be released off an actively > > updated maintenance branch, which has been baked-in and never from the > > trunk. > > > > Those who have followed the earlier mails would realize that the most > > important "feature" about this branch is to stick to only long term > > maintenance - which in effect is adopting HBase's successful idea. > > > > That is just plain solid engineering. > > > > Anyway, it would be in the best interests of the larger community, to > find > > out who else finds that approach confusing. > > > > Brock, I'm not sure whether you are confused or whether you think other > > people will be confused (and if so, why?). > > > > Cheers, > > Gopal > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Vikram Dixit K <vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > <vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > @Brock, > > > > I created this branch from 0.14. I created this branch based on the email > > thread discussing 1.0, > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/8er9YGX8g2 > > > > where you had said you agreed with the suggestion from Enis from HBase > who > > said that we should base 1.0 on a stable version rather than making it a > > feature release. > > > > @Lefty, > > > > You are right in that branch 0.14 has been made 1.0. You are also right > > that 0.15 would be 1.1.0 and we should capture that. > > > > Regards > > Vikram. > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> > > <the...@hortonworks.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Lefty, > > Yes, you are right. Anything that is not fixed in 0.14 and is fixed in > > 1.0 would have 1.0 as the fixed version. > > Yes, 0.15.0 would then become 1.1.0 . > > > > Yes, it is a good idea to document this translation somewhere. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com > > > > <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > So my initial impression was correct -- instead of calling it release > > > 0.14.1, we're calling it 1.0.0. Or am I hopelessly confused? > > > > > > Will 0.15.0 be 1.1.0? (If so, I'll need to edit a dozen wikidocs.) > > > > > > Will release numbers get changed in JIRA issues? Presumably that's not > > > possible in old comments, so we should document the equivalences > > > somewhere. A JIRA issue for that with a well-phrased summary could help > > > future searchers. > > > > > > > > > -- Lefty > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Eugene Koifman < > > ekoif...@hortonworks.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> could we include HIVE-9390 & HIVE-9404? This has been committed to > > trunk. > > >> They add useful retry logic to support insert/update/delete > > functionality. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vikram Dixit K < > > > > vikram.di...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi Folks, > > >> > > > >> > I have created branch 1.0 as discussed earlier. All the jiras that > > have > > >> > 0.14 as the fix version should be committed to 1.0 branch instead. > > > > The > > > > >> list > > >> > of jiras that are being tracked for 1.0 are as follows: > > >> > > > >> > HIVE-8485 > > >> > HIVE-9053 > > >> > HIVE-8996. > > >> > > > >> > Please let me know if you want to include more jiras here. I am > > working > > >> on > > >> > generating javadocs for this. I hope to have an RC out once these > > jiras > > >> get > > >> > in. > > >> > > > >> > Regards > > >> > Vikram. > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Vaibhav Gumashta < > > >> > vgumas...@hortonworks.com > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Vikram, > > >> > > > > >> > > I'd like to get this in: HIVE-8890 > > >> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-8890> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-8890> [HiveServer2 > > dynamic > > >> > > service discovery: use persistent ephemeral nodes curator recipe]. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > --Vaibhav > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Alan Gates < > ga...@hortonworks.com > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > I'd really like to get HIVE-8966 in there, since it breaks > > streaming > > >> > > > ingest. The patch is ready to go, it's just waiting on a > > > > review, > > > > >> which > > >> > > > Owen has promised to do soon. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Alan. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Vikram Dixit K <vikram.di...@gmail.com> <vikram.di...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > January 19, 2015 at 18:53 > > >> > > > Hi All, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I am going to be creating the branch 1.0 as mentioned earlier, > > >> > tomorrow. > > >> > > I > > >> > > > have the following list of jiras that I want to get committed > > > > to > > > > the > > >> > > branch > > >> > > > before creating an RC. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > HIVE-9112 > > >> > > > HIVE-6997 : Delete hive server 1 > > >> > > > HIVE-8485 > > >> > > > HIVE-9053 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Please let me know if you would like me to include any other > > jiras. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Vikram. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Vikram Dixit K < > > >> > vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > <vikram.di...@gmail.com> <vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> <the...@hortonworks.com> > > >> > > > January 1, 2015 at 10:23 > > >> > > > Yes, 1.0 is a good opportunity to remove some of the deprecated > > >> > > > components. The change to remove HiveServer1 is already there > > > > in > > > > >> trunk > > >> > > > , we should include that. > > >> > > > We can also use 1.0 release to clarify the public vs private > > status > > >> of > > >> > > > some of the APIs. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the reminder about the documentation status of > > > > 1.0. I > > > > will > > >> > > > look at some of them. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Lefty Leverenz > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > December 31, 2014 at 0:12 > > >> > > > Oh, now I get it. The 1.0.0 *branch* of Hive. Okay. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- Lefty > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Lefty Leverenz < > > >> > > leftylever...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > <leftylever...@gmail.com> <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > December 30, 2014 at 23:43 > > >> > > > I thought x.x.# releases were just for fixups, x.#.x could > > > > include > > > > >> new > > >> > > > features, and #.x.x were major releases that might have some > > >> > > > backward-incompatible changes. But I guess we haven't agreed > > > > on > > > > that. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > As for documentation, we still have 84 jiras with TODOC14 > > > > labels > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > . > > >> > > > Not to mention 25 TODOC13 labels > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > , > > >> > > > eleven TODOC12 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC12 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC12 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > , > > >> > > > seven TODOC11 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC11 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC11 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > , > > >> > > > and seven TODOC10 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC10 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC10 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > . > > >> > > > > > >> > > > That's 134 doc tasks to finish for a Hive 1.0.0 release -- > > preferably > > >> > by > > >> > > > the release date, not after. Because expectations are higher > > > > for > > > > >> 1.0.0 > > >> > > > releases. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- Lefty > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Vikram Dixit K < > > >> > vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > <vikram.di...@gmail.com> <vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Vikram Dixit K <vikram.di...@gmail.com> <vikram.di...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > December 30, 2014 at 17:23 > > >> > > > Hi Folks, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Given that there have been a number of fixes that have gone > > > > into > > > > >> branch > > >> > > > 0.14 in the past 8 weeks, I would like to make a release > > > > of > > 0.14.1 > > > > >> > soon. > > >> > > I > > >> > > > would like to fix some of the release issues as well this > > > > time > > > > >> around. > > >> > I > > >> > > am > > >> > > > thinking of some time around 15th January for getting a RC > > > > out. > > > > >> Please > > >> > > let > > >> > > > me know if you have any concerns. Also, from a previous thread, > > > > I > > > > >> would > > >> > > > like to make this release the 1.0 branch of hive. The process > > > > for > > > > >> > getting > > >> > > > jiras into this release is going to be the same as the previous > > one > > >> > viz.: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. Mark the jira with fix version 0.14.1 and update the status > > > > to > > > > >> > > > blocker/critical. > > >> > > > 2. If a committer +1s the patch for 0.14.1, it is good to > > > > go in. > > > > >> Please > > >> > > > mention me in the jira in case you are not sure if the jira > > > > should > > > > >> make > > >> > > it > > >> > > > for 0.14.1. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Vikram. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > >> > > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual > > > > or > > > > >> > entity > > >> > > > to which it is addressed and may contain information that > > > > is > > > > >> > > confidential, > > >> > > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. > > > > If > > the > > > > >> > reader > > >> > > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > > >> notified > > >> > > that > > >> > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure > > > > or > > > > >> > > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > > If you > > > > have > > >> > > > received this communication in error, please contact the > > > > sender > > > > >> > > immediately > > >> > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > >> > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual > > > > or > > > > >> entity > > >> > to > > >> > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is > > confidential, > > >> > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If > > > > the > > > > >> reader > > >> > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > > notified > > >> > that > > >> > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure > > > > or > > > > >> > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you > > > > have > > > > >> > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > >> > immediately > > >> > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Nothing better than when appreciated for hard work. > > >> > -Mark > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Eugene > > >> > > >> -- > > >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or > > entity to > > >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is > > > > confidential, > > > > >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the > > reader > > >> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > that > > >> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > >> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > >> received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > immediately > > >> and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >> > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > > > > to > > > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > > > that > > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > > > immediately > > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Nothing better than when appreciated for hard work. > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > > to which it is addressed and may contain information that is > confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
