Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADczPYSsPJtd56wAq9VwgvUiKSGB=u5DAKPJAA1Ym94USRbKrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGHyZ6Kr8NUaUj0mh=b552cUYqsjqe=BrjBXy=5K6ODitvOPjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<526ACB7A.5040607@gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6LYLZOAdU4Q1pHEyWUOtujbGcjD8Vmy2GRDpPOj8RSERw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADczPYSsPJtd56wAq9VwgvUiKSGB=u5DAKPJAA1Ym94USRbKrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:29:21 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAGUtCHpxuSY3r7TRPiBeFoYLzt_wVPWNtXgouk1QfP3VFYOaaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Accumulo Versions (was Accumulo feature freeze in 1 week)
From: Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com>
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org, vines@apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e1481200fc304e9984855

--047d7b2e1481200fc304e9984855
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:22 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 marketing.major.minor
>

For x.y.z, Christopher and I have discussed only incrementing x when
deprecated methods are dropped.


>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > When explaining X.major.minor versioning to people, I generally refer to
> X
> > as the "marketing" version. It gets incremented when the project wants to
> > push for a separation in the minds of users.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 stuff
> > >>> 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]: http://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.**html<
> > http://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html>
> > >> [2]: http://accumulo.apache.org/**governance/releasing.html<
> > http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html>
> > >> [3]: http://accumulo.apache.org/**git.html#release-management<
> > http://accumulo.apache.org/git.html#release-management>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>

--047d7b2e1481200fc304e9984855--