+1 on Matt's proposal.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Matt Foley <mfo...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > I support giving all three active code branches a clean start, on an equal > footing: > > - The next release of 0.20-security (formerly expected as "0.20.205.1") to > be 1.0.0, establishing branch-1.0 > - The next release of 0.22 to be 2.0.0, establishing branch-2.0 > - The recent release of 0.23.0 to be 3.0.0, establishing branch-3.0, > from which the formerly expected "0.23.1" may be released as 3.0.1 > - All three code branches to obey the established major.minor.patch > versioning rules going forward. > - So the next release from trunk to be 3.1.0 or 4.0.0, at the choice of the > then release manager, and the pleasure of the community. > > Regards, > --Matt > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 11/16/2011 10:15 AM, Scott Carey wrote: >> > IMO what is important from the development and maintenance perspective is >> > the _meaning_ of the >> > major.minor.patch numbers as described in my previous message. >> > >> > If a minor version number bump means that it is a superset of the >> previous >> > release and is backwards compatible, then that requirement on its own >> > answers whether 0.22 can become 1.1, or if it must be a 2.0 release. >> > >> > Whether hadoop starts using a new meaning for major.minor.patch is what >> is >> > of interest to me; starting at 1.x.y or 20.x.y or 999.x.y is marketing. >> >> Scott, this is a great point. Thanks for making it. >> >> > The version number is completely meaningless on its own, pure marketing. >> > However, if the numbers gain meaning through a clear definition of what >> > the major.minor.patch numbers signify, then there is meaning and >> structure >> > going forward. >> > The current state of affairs seems to be: >> > major: always 0 >> > minor: potentially big changes; almost always breaks wire compatibility; >> > occasionally breaks API backwards compatibility >> > minor: typically bug fixes only; 'bug fix' not well defined; almost >> never >> > breaks API or wire compatibility >> >> Long ago I proposed such rules for Hadoop releases at: >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap >> >> These state that pre-1.0 releases behave roughly as above. >> >> > I think the community can decide two things independently: >> > >> > - Should 0.20.20x be renamed 1.0.y ? (perhaps not, perhaps 0.23 should >> be >> > 1.0 and the others left alone). >> > - Should hadoop adopt a new clear definition of major.minor.patch number >> > significance? >> >> Would you care to call a vote on one or both of these? >> >> > example proposal: >> > * major version number increment: signifies breaks in API backwards >> > compatibility and/or major architecture overhauls. >> > * minor version number increment: signifies possible API changes, but >> > maintains API backwards compatibility. Wire compatibility may break (see >> > release notes). Included functionality is a superset of previous minor >> > release. >> > * patch version number increment: signifies a release where all >> > improvements are fully backwards compatible with the previous patch >> > version, including wire format. >> >> This is also similar to what the Roadmap wiki page indicates for >> post-1.0 releases. >> >> Renaming things after the fact to try to make them consistent when the >> prior rules weren't consistently followed is not easy. Instead we might >> better focus on rules that we intend to obey for releases going forward >> and then obey them. >> >> > Whatever the meaning of the numbers turns out to be will dictate whether >> > releases after a 1.0.x need to be 2.0.x or can be 1.1.x >> >> Good point. The most accurate approach would probably be to call each >> existing branch a distinct major release. Dropping the leading zero >> would reduce confusion and avoid marketing but would still combine >> 0.20.x and 0.20.20x which perhaps ought to be considered separate major >> releases. For me this is however a reasonable tradeoff since we're >> better off focusing on improving things in the future than arguing about >> marketing and how to hide our past versioning mistakes. >> >> Doug >> >
