+1 on the running commentary here, non-binding of course :-)
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Andrew Ash <and...@andrewash.com> wrote: > +1 on the next release feeling more like a 0.10 than a 1.0 > On May 17, 2014 4:38 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. > > >
