On Feb 6, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Evan Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > The other reason for waiting are things like stability. > > It would be great to have as a goal for 1.0.0 that under most heavy > use scenarios, workers and executors don't just die, which is not true > today. > Also, there should be minimal "silent failures" which are difficult to debug. >
I think this is orthogonal to the version number. 1.x versions can have bugs — it’s almost unavoidable in the distributed system space. The version number is more about the level of compatibility and support people can expect, which I think is something we want to solidify. Calling it 1.x will also make it more likely that we have long-term maintenance releases, because with the current project, people expect that they have to keep jumping to the latest version. Just as an example, when we did a survey a while back, out of ~100 respondents, all were either on the very latest release or on master (!). I’ve had multiple people ask me about longer-term supported versions (e.g. if I download 1.x now, will it still have maintenance releases a year from now, or will it be left in the dust). Matei
