Because we can not really have a stable api if by definition we build around snapshot dependencies.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Question. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-8614 > > Did we not just agree in this thread that hive will no long have > dependency that are SNAPSHOT? > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Hi Alan, >> >> I agree with Xuefu and what was suggested in your statement. I was >> thinking we'd release the next release as 0.15 and then later there >> would be 1.0 off trunk (e.g. what would have been 0.16) and thus be >> superset (minus anything we intentionally remove). >> >> As I have said several times, I'd like to release more often so I feel >> we could even start the 1.0 work shortly after the 0.15 release. For >> my part, I do agree with some earlier contributor/user sentiment that >> it would be good to have some basic public API defined for 1.0. I >> don't think that will be too hard as it's more or less obvious what >> our public API is today. >> >> Hope this seems reasonable. >> >> Cheers, >> Brock >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:31 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. >> >> >> > >
