Hi Brock, thank you for your summary. I'm fine with the idea and I won't -1 it.
Jarcec On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:48:16AM -0500, Brock Noland wrote: > It feels like we approaching a consensus on that if we include > MRUNIT-138, which is backwards incompatible but an improved user API, > we should bump the major version. Assuming MRUNIT-138 is included, is > there anyone that would -1 a release with the 1.0 designation? > > Brock > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Brock Noland <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree that the changes in this release are not nearly as substantial > > as handling the Tool interface but I do they are major improvements. > > For example, we now allow users to specify many input key/values and > > have distributed cache support. For quick reference: > > http://s.apache.org/NQY > > > > Brock > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Jim Donofrio <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes graduation has nothing to do with the quality or state of the code, > >> graduation is all about community and should not influence a release > >> number. > >> > >> I agree that 1.0 would signal a breaking change but 1.0 should also signal > >> major improvements, api changes, new features. I dont think this release > >> contains any drastic features. I think we should continue in the 0.* > >> versions for awhile until we add major new features such as Tool support. > >> At > >> that time you can change the package names to org.apache.mrunit and go to > >> 1.0. I would rather not become like Firefox or Chrome and do major release > >> number changes on every release. > >> > >> > >> On 09/13/2012 06:31 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote: > >>> > >>> I do have similar reasoning here: > >>> > >>> 1.0 - in case that we're breaking backward compatibility > >>> 0.10 - in case that we're not breaking backward compatibility > >>> > >>> I personally do not see graduation of the project important enough for the > >>> version to jump to next major. We've recently graduated sqoop and flume > >>> and > >>> remained on the same major version without any issues. > >>> > >>> But I'll support next reason no matter the final version. > >>> > >>> Jarcec > >>> > >>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:41:08PM +0200, Bertrand Dechoux wrote: > >>>> > >>>> And I would say the same in a reverse way. > >>>> If we do a 1.0 release, all required incompatible changes should be done > >>>> so > >>>> that there would be no need to drag unneeded deprecated stuff from the > >>>> 1.0 > >>>> up to the 2.0. > >>>> > >>>> For me, the question is whether we should break compatibility for the > >>>> next > >>>> release. If yes, then break all which is necessary for a clean future. If > >>>> not, then assure full compatibility. If yes, it should be 1.0. If not, it > >>>> should be 0.10. > >>>> > >>>> The following question is then : if we keep compatibility what will the > >>>> next release ship with? Is a release worth the new features/bug fixes? On > >>>> that point, I am not knowledgeable enough to answer. I would accept the > >>>> decisions of the more 'ancient' devs. But it should indeed be discussed. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Bertrand > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Wei, Jianbin <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 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/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Bertrand Dechoux > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ > > > > -- > Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
