If it is an incompatible change in non-trivial way, I would strong in favor a 1.0 release.
Regards, -- Jianbin On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Brock Noland wrote: OK, we have the following viewpoints with supporting reasons: 0.10 - supported by a number of people (reasons: none given, 1.0 should be used for Tool interface support) 1.0 - supported by a number of people (reasons: none given, recent graduation, due to the incompatible change) I tilt towards the 1.0 release due to the incompatible changes but I am not strongly committed to that viewpoint. I am strongly committed to a release whatever the number! :) It would seem easy enough to vote on the matter but I think votes can become divisive. I have seen that in the Hadoop community when voting is used to resolve issues it ends up much like the state of US politics. As such, I'd prefer to settle this via discussion. We have all stated our preferences but not our convictions. Is there anyone who strongly in favor of / opposed to a 0.10 release? Is there anyone who is strongly in favor of / opposed to a 1.0 release? If so please state your reasoning. Brock On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Wei, Jianbin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Agree with Dave that when it becomes incompatible, the major version number should be increased. Major changes also warrant a major number change. Regards, -- Jianbin On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Brock Noland wrote: As I understand it, if we implement https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-138 as described in the JIRA. That is, all the drivers keep state of the inputs, we can undeprecate the methods depcrecated in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-64? Brock On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Jim Donofrio <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we need to keep those deprecated methods around for awhile, no reason to anger users. On 09/07/2012 08:35 AM, Bertrand Dechoux wrote: Then the question is about when/if the compatibility should be broken. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-139 would be quite easy without the history of MRUnit and the @Deprecated.... On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dave Beech <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think this depends on what we decide to do about MRUNIT-138. We were discussing an incompatible change, and if we do decide to do that I think the version number should increase to 1.0.0 to reflect this (and also the fact that this is the first version since graduation). If we later go ahead with the API rewrite (MRUNIT-69), this could form MRUnit 2.0.0! Would line up nicely with Hadoop's own numbering strategy ;) On 7 September 2012 07:54, James Kinley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: +1 for the 1.0.0 release. I think it's a good idea to increase the major version number considering the recent graduation and the included changes. On 7 Sep 2012, at 07:29, "Wei, Jianbin" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: My bad, 0.9.0 --> 0.10.0 is also version increase. My eyes are not used to have a 2 digits minor version yet. However, I still prefer a one-digit minor version as most software do that in practice. Regards, -- Jianbin On Sep 6, 2012, at 10:41 PM, Bertrand Dechoux wrote: I am not sure to understand "It is not good to backtracking version.". Does it mean that the version after graduating should show the 'step'? Is that a common way to do it? Not taking into account the graduation, I would also favor the "0.10.0" instead of "1.0.0". Regards Bertrand -- Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ -- Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
