+1 on 0.20.x (where x is a J > 3) Nigel - could we make all the patches in this branch that have not been committed up stream (that need to be) blockers for 22? This way 22 is not a regression against 0.20.x.
Thanks, Eli On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com> wrote: > +1 for 0.20.x, where x >= 100. I agree that the 1.0 moniker would involve > more discussion. > > Will this be a jumbo patch attached to a Jira and then committed to the > branch? Just curious. > > Cheers, > Nige > > > On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > >> I'm willing to discuss any and all options, for a very short period. >> >> Technically you have a reasonable point, Doug has suggested this in the past >> too. If everyone agrees, fine; if not, I'm do not want hung up on a release >> number. I just *do not* want a controversy. >> >> As I mentioned, I'm looking to finish this up in a couple of weeks; so, I >> could do without a long discussion on the on the critical path. >> >> I'm happy to go with a reasonable compromise, if not, hadoop-0.20.100 is >> what I'm priming for. >> >> Heck, if Stack wants to call the append release (not sure how far ahead he >> is) as hadoop-0.20.100, I'm willing to call this hadoop-0.20.200. >> >> All I care about is having a distinct release number from 0.20.2 (our last >> stable release). Again, I just want to get a release into the hands of our >> users. Please, let's resolve this quickly. Please. >> >> Arun >> >> On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:10 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 >> > >
