+1 on *new* releases from 0.20.2xx branches as 1.x; 0.22 branch as 2.x and 0.23/24 branches as 3.x.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > I don't see this as 'renaming', I propose we just look forward and make the > next release from branch-0.20-security as 1.0 to keep things simple. > > IMHO, going back to rename existing releases (0.21 etc.) isn't productive. > > Arun > > On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 15/11/11 06:07, Dhruba Borthakur wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 to making the upcoming 0.23 release as 2.0. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> And leave the 0.20.20x chain as is, just because people are used to it >>> >> >> +1 to Steve's proposal. Renaming 0.20 is too big a pain at this point. >> Though it's weird to never have a 1.0, the "0.20" name is well >> ingrained, and I think renaming it at this point will cause a lot of >> confusion (plus cause problems for downstream projects like Hive and >> HBase which use regexes against the version string in various shim >> layers) >> >> -Todd >> -- >> Todd Lipcon >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > >
