I had exactly the same reaction when this came up in the past: http://s.apache.org/l9 http://s.apache.org/5Gv
but our experience with myriad 0.20 variants has demonstrated that Hadoop can support both a stable branch and a development branch. Trying to direct effort away from 0.20 by preventing it from happening in Apache didn't work, and I was wrong to advocate for it. The interest in a more slow-moving, stable version of Hadoop will exist whether we give it an outlet in Apache or not, most of us work on both anyway, so we might as well collaborate in both fora. -C On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Ian Holsman <had...@holsman.net> wrote: > so if 0.20 becomes 1.0, what does 0.22 become ? > > I'm still not sure if we shouldn't just add security to 0.22, and leave the > 0.20 in maintenance mode from here on. > > On Jan 12, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > >> >> On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> >>> I'm open to suggestions - how about something like 20.100 to show that it's >>> a big jump? Anything else? >> >> >> Although I'm not wild about any of the potential release names, this patch >> set is neither a subset or superset of the 0.21 or 0.22 branches. Given >> that, I think that a new major release number makes the most sense. It is >> also relatively likely that additional minor releases will be made off of >> this branch while 0.22 is stabilizing. We've talked about declaring 0.20 a >> 1.0 for a long time and this feels like backing into the decision, but >> technically, I believe it to be the right name for such a release. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -- Owen > >
