Hi Chris, I really appreciate that there is such a discussion on the version number of IoTDB in the community, and here are some of my thoughts.
I believe that upgrading the first version number requires consideration of various impacts. The compatibility of interfaces between versions is one aspect. At the same time, it is also necessary to consider whether the improvements of the version will have a significant impact on other aspects of the system, such as stability and maturity. These are also important factors that users pay attention to, so we want to make our users perceive this through the upgrade from 1.x to 2.0. Involving table model to IoTDB has the following specific changes: 1. Milestone changes in functionality: With the addition of the table model, IoTDB will have two sets of metadata models. This is an important large-scale update of a module, representing that IoTDB will be able to support and connect with traditional developer habits in the future, which will have a milestone impact on users. 2. Upgrade of code architecture: Due to the table model, IoTDB's data file has been upgraded from TsFile v3 to v4, which involves adjustments to the file structure. And also, we add a query engine for the table model. These are all major upgrades to code architecture. 3. Extensive impact and changes to the code: Although we are still in the development stage of the table model, just the first PR[13119], the table model has affected 1266 files (out of a total of 5943 Java files), involving 116973 lines+ and 13196 lines- of code. This scope of code impact far exceeds the impact range of an ordinary feature. 4. Impact on system stability and maturity: Although we will strive to reduce the impact of the above extensive functional changes and code modifications on the performance and stability of the entire system, as software developers, we all understand that achieving the above goals still requires some time to mature, and the impact on stability is also part of what users perceive. I have also looked at some requirments of the upgrade of the first version number in Apache projects, but it seems that there is no clear standard. The introduction of incompatibilities in features or interfaces you mentioned is indeed an important consideration (Spark also explicitly mentions it, Apache Spark Release 3.0.0), but more importantly, it is whether developers want to convey to users "this is a major version change, which may have a significant impact on users." So, like other Apache projects (such as Apache Doris), they will also consider architectural upgrades, changes in metadata, or underlying data formats as factors for upgrading the first version number (Apache Doris Release Versioning). So we still hope that the table model version number will make its debut to our users as version 2.0. --------- Best, Stefanie On 2024/08/25 07:40:50 Christofer Dutz wrote: > Usually major version upgrades introduce breaking changes. As far as I > understood it, it just adds features. That would qualify for a second digit > increase. > > If we do a major version bump we should also consider doing some other > refactoring, that we postponed till the next major release. > > Chris > > Gesendet von Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > ________________________________ > From: Yuan Tian <jackietie...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 7:37:21 AM > To: dev <dev@iotdb.apache.org> > Subject: Upgrading version from 1.4.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-SNAOSHOT for master > branch > > Hi all, > > Given the significant changes that the table model introduces to IoTDB and > the associated upgrade from TsFile version V3 to V4, it is reasonable to > consider updating the version on the master branch to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT. This > approach aligns with the intention to release the table model with the > version number 2.0.0, signifying a major update to the system. > > For the tree model, which will continue to evolve with bug fixes and > performance improvements on the 1.X.X series (such as the upcoming 1.3.3 > version), it's important to maintain clear versioning to differentiate > between the stable, incremental updates and the more substantial changes > introduced by the table model. What do you think? Best regards, > > ------------------------ > > Yuan Tian >
