cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com>
Subject Re: Cassandra 0.7.0 Release in Riptano public repository?
Date Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:23:10 GMT
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 09:23 -0500, Michael Fortin wrote:
> This my understanding of 0.* releases.
> - They're not considered production ready by the maintainers
> - They subject to changes that break backwards compatibility
> - Generally poorly documented because the api is so volatile
> - Previous releases are unsupported
> 
> for 1.* releases
> - The maintainer is saying this is tested and production ready,
> sometimes also marked as Final for GA
> - Minor releases do not break backward compatibility
> - The major and minor release have some level of support, with open
> source, that usually means docs and mailing lists but they should be
> very active.  
> - thoroughly documented

FWIW, your interpretation of what it means to be 1.0, is not wholly
unique, but it's far from universal either.

> Sorting through the issue tracker is a little to fine grained to get a
> big picture view of where cassandra is going.  

Sorry, I should have been more clear here.

The closest we have to a roadmap are the tickets that are marked as
blocking the next release, you shouldn't have to do any digging, they're
all available in one view here:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310865&fixfor=12314820

But, it's pretty fluid for the first few months after a new release.

> And, just to be clear, I'm not questioning the maintainers approach,
> just humbling asking for a little more clarification.  Cassandra is
> awesome, and I'm itching to use it on some production projects where I
> think it would be a great fit, but 0.* designation scares me a little.
> Of course, a hastily released 1.* would be worse. 

I understand, but what I'm saying is a "1.0" release in this context
carries special significance that just doesn't map well to open source
projects.  And, in addition to being subjective, your criteria differs
from that of many people.  It might make things easier to just version
some future release 1.0 and be done with it, but I'd rather be honest
with you.

This is honest:

* We treated the Google code dump in 2008 as 0.1.0 (though no formal
release was made).
* We likewise treated the Apache code dump in 2009 as 0.2.0 (again, no
formal release).
* We called the first release under the Apache Incubator 0.3.0.
* We just now released 0.7.0.
* We maintain backward compatibility between the "minor" and "revision",
that is 0.6.1, 0.6.2, 0.6.3, etc.

This is why I said my preference would be to just drop the leading 0.
We've been using the minor like a major, and the revision like a minor,
(and we haven't had need for a revision).  We've had 7 major releases,
(5 if you only want to count what's happened under Apache).

Also:

* Most of the "maintainers" would tell you that it is production-ready,
but then, they might be biased since most of them are running it in
production. YMMV.
* It is as poorly documented as most FLOSS projects.
* We provide support through the issue tracker, mailing lists, and IRC,
and you can purchase support contracts through Riptano.


-- 
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com


Mime
View raw message