We made incompatible api changes whose impact we don't know yet completely : both from implementation and usage point of view.
We had the option of getting real-world feedback from the user community if we had gone to 0.10 but the spark developers seemed to be in a hurry to get to 1.0 - so I made my opinion known but left it to the wisdom of larger group of committers to decide ... I did not think it was critical enough to do a binding -1 on. Regards Mridul On 17-May-2014 9:43 pm, "Mark Hamstra" <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote: > Which of the unresolved bugs in spark-core do you think will require an > API-breaking change to fix? If there are none of those, then we are still > essentially on track for a 1.0.0 release. > > The number of contributions and pace of change now is quite high, but I > don't think that waiting for the pace to slow before releasing 1.0 is > viable. If Spark's short history is any guide to its near future, the pace > will not slow by any significant amount for any noteworthy length of time, > but rather will continue to increase. What we need to be aiming for, I > think, is to have the great majority of those new contributions being made > to MLLlib, GraphX, SparkSQL and other areas of the code that we have > clearly marked as not frozen in 1.x. I think we are already seeing that, > but if I am just not recognizing breakage of our semantic versioning > guarantee that will be forced on us by some pending changes, now would be a > good time to set me straight. > > > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I had echoed similar sentiments a while back when there was a discussion > > around 0.10 vs 1.0 ... I would have preferred 0.10 to stabilize the api > > changes, add missing functionality, go through a hardening release before > > 1.0 > > > > But the community preferred a 1.0 :-) > > > > Regards, > > Mridul > > > > On 17-May-2014 3:19 pm, "Sean Owen" <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > > On this note, non-binding commentary: > > > > > > Releases happen in local minima of change, usually created by > > > internally enforced code freeze. Spark is incredibly busy now due to > > > external factors -- recently a TLP, recently discovered by a large new > > > audience, ease of contribution enabled by Github. It's getting like > > > the first year of mainstream battle-testing in a month. It's been very > > > hard to freeze anything! I see a number of non-trivial issues being > > > reported, and I don't think it has been possible to triage all of > > > them, even. > > > > > > Given the high rate of change, my instinct would have been to release > > > 0.10.0 now. But won't it always be very busy? I do think the rate of > > > significant issues will slow down. > > > > > > Version ain't nothing but a number, but if it has any meaning it's the > > > semantic versioning meaning. 1.0 imposes extra handicaps around > > > striving to maintain backwards-compatibility. That may end up being > > > bent to fit in important changes that are going to be required in this > > > continuing period of change. Hadoop does this all the time > > > unfortunately and gets away with it, I suppose -- minor version > > > releases are really major. (On the other extreme, HBase is at 0.98 and > > > quite production-ready.) > > > > > > Just consider this a second vote for focus on fixes and 1.0.x rather > > > than new features and 1.x. I think there are a few steps that could > > > streamline triage of this flood of contributions, and make all of this > > > easier, but that's for another thread. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com > > > > wrote: > > > > +1, but just barely. We've got quite a number of outstanding bugs > > > > identified, and many of them have fixes in progress. I'd hate to see > > those > > > > efforts get lost in a post-1.0.0 flood of new features targeted at > > 1.1.0 -- > > > > in other words, I'd like to see 1.0.1 retain a high priority relative > > to > > > > 1.1.0. > > > > > > > > Looking through the unresolved JIRAs, it doesn't look like any of the > > > > identified bugs are show-stoppers or strictly regressions (although I > > will > > > > note that one that I have in progress, SPARK-1749, is a bug that we > > > > introduced with recent work -- it's not strictly a regression because > > we > > > > had equally bad but different behavior when the DAGScheduler > exceptions > > > > weren't previously being handled at all vs. being slightly > mis-handled > > > > now), so I'm not currently seeing a reason not to release. > > >
