accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: Accumulo Versions (was Accumulo feature freeze in 1 week)
Date Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:50:18 GMT
That is a good point.

We typically have referred to 1.x releases as "major". I will say that 
when I wrote up the Git document, I wrote it based on how we refer to 
our versions, not necessarily using correct semantic versioning verbage.

Is the "1" or "1.6.0" the "super-major" version? :P

On 10/25/13 12:43 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> On the feature freeze reminder thread, Chris said:
>> I don't mind putting things off to 1.7 (if necessary). But... if 1.6.0
>> isn't sufficiently feature rich, there's not really a reason to
>> release it just yet... until those features are ready. That said, I do
>> think there'll be enough features in 1.6.0 to release it as a minor
>> release, if we're interpreting the version as the standard
>> <major>.<minor>.<bugfix> scheme, even if we end up pushing some
>> off to 1.7.
> I didn't want to derail that thread, but this does not line up with what
> I've seen in Accumulo. (Though I agree that it is a common numbering
> scheme[1])
> The Accumulo release guide[2] doesn't specify how "minor" and "major" turn
> into positions in the version number. However, the git workflow guide[3]
> does, and basically says that Accumulo uses
> x.y.z
> y = major
> z = minor
> This also lines up with my understanding of previous Accumulo releases and
> cross-compatibility amongst them.
> [1]:
> [2]:
> [3]:

View raw message