I agree with Konstantin. In previous discussion, I had suggested simultaneous renumbering, but for some reason it was not considered.
(For history buffs: I upgraded from Windows 1.0 to Windows 3.1 straight. Windows 2.0 did not have many features that made it compelling to upgrade. It did not seem odd to skip a number then, and I don't see why it would now. I also skipped Windows Vista and upgraded from XP to Windows 7, even if Vista was touted as a major release.) - Milind --- Milind Bhandarkar Chief Architect, Greenplum Labs, Data Computing Division, EMC +1-650-523-3858 (W) +1-408-666-8483 (M) On 3/19/12 12:04 PM, "Konstantin Shvachko" <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hadoop naming is definitely confusing. And having Hadoop-1 did not >make it less confusing for users. > >> Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and >>released) > >It was released on November 29, 2011. >eBay is actively using it as of today. > >If the goal of renaming branches is to make things less confusing >about Hadoop, then I agree with people saying we should do a >simultaneous rename of the branches. That is >Current 0.22 -> 2 >Current 0.23 -> 3 > >It almost sounds like release .22 does not deserve a whole number, >only a fraction. But having .22 renamed to 1.5 creates a confusion >that it belongs to Hadoop-1 line, which is not exactly the message we >want to send out. >Also I don't know what the number of commits reflects, and whether it >is good or not to have many for a particular release. > >If the community decides to rename .22 to 2 I will be glad to work on it. > >Thanks, >--Konstantin > >On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Todd Papaioannou ><drluckys...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 18, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >> >>> 9.22 can't be considered as 1.5 because it is the major release from >>>1.0 (old >>> 0.20.x). Besides, by declaring it as 1.5 we'll be planting future >>>confusion of >>> the same sort that happened around 0.20* line. >>> >>> And last but not least, the same discussion has happened in the past >>>around >>> 1.0 release time like http://is.gd/x1fVqu >> >> Yes I remember it well, but AFAIC there was no clear decision on 0.22 >>or 0.23. There were competing proposals and opinions and basically what >>happened was that we punted the decision on anything other than >>0.20->1.0 until a later date. But, that later date is now approaching >>and we continue to call the current release in question 0.23. Hence my >>original email. >> >> Personally, I do not believe 0.22 is sufficiently major to call it 2.0 >>and push 0.23 to 3.0. But that's just my $0.02. I don't feel strongly >>enough to worry about what the outcome is. >> >> What I _do_ care strongly about is that we get some resolution and stop >>using 0.23 as a release name. It's confusing to the market and the >>customer base, and while we have made great progress in simplifying >>things with the 1.0 release moniker, we need to continue to make >>progress. >> >> ToddP >> >> >> >>> >>> Cos >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:41PM, Todd Papaioannou wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> With the upcoming release of 0.23, isn't it about time that we >>>>started calling 0.23 "Hadoop 2.0" instead? >>>> >>>> While the numbering system may make sense to everyone here, to the >>>>rest of the world it's going to be hella confusing for 0.23 to come >>>>out after Hadoop 1.0 was released. Since 0.23 has MR2 in it I think >>>>that it would make sense to call it 2.0. Also, I think would really >>>>help with the brand awareness/perception of the project in the wider >>>>customer audience. >>>> >>>> I know there are some other potential releases out there too, so my >>>>overall suggestion would be: >>>> >>>> Current 1.X -> Remains 1.x (as new bug fix releases are released) >>>> Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and >>>>released) >>>> Current 0.23 -> Gets renamed to 2.0 >>>> >>>> Remember, a large part of the reason for renaming 0.20.xx to 1.0 was >>>>to make project progress more understandable to the rest of the world. >>>>We should ensure we don't regress with the next major release. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> ToddP >>>> >> >
