My 2 cents - whatever branch we decide to put out as 1.0, I think we should have a stability/testing phase without adding too many features, so that it is pretty stable to end users.
- Karthik On 11/16/11 3:57 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net> > >> To: d...@hbase.apache.org; Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >> Cc: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:52 PM >> Subject: Re: on HBase 1.0 >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> It's possible a release of 0.20.20X (X=5 I think) as Hadoop 1.0 is >> imminent. >>> >>> The Hadoop 1.0 release is an acknowledgement of reality -- 0.20 >>>branch is >> in production at many places. >>> >>> I know we agreed to separate HBase versioning from Hadoop versioning, >> but if we continue to number HBase as 0.X after there is a Hadoop 1.0, >>there is >> an implicit marketing message that we feel HBase is not as ready as >>Hadoop. >>> >>> >>> I propose that we consider, if and when Hadoop 1.0 is released, that >>>we >> release HBase 1.0 off of the 0.92 branch. A subsequent release off of >>trunk >> could be 1.1 or 2.0 at the discretion of the RM and community consensus. >>> >> >> Agreed. Was thinking 0.94 could e be 1.0.0 since its getting a load >> of 0.89-fb branch forward-ports. Would have to come out right after >> 0.92 though. > > >Releasing 0.94 as 1.0 like that, for that reason, sounds good to me, but >I think that would imply 0.92 is merely a stepping stone to 1.0 aka 0.94. >Perhaps that is accurate. > > - Andy >
