Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96297 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2011 12:38:52 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Feb 2011 12:38:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 93449 invoked by uid 500); 12 Feb 2011 12:38:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 93307 invoked by uid 500); 12 Feb 2011 12:38:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 93299 invoked by uid 99); 12 Feb 2011 12:38:47 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:38:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.214.172] (HELO mail-iw0-f172.google.com) (209.85.214.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:38:42 +0000 Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so3500244iwc.31 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:38:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.177.6 with SMTP id bg6mr2154201icb.3.1297514300410; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:38:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.169.21 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:38:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20F997C7-647B-4F1C-90DF-B649749FA229@m410.us> References: <483A6452-D05F-479C-9F04-FD552C6C98FB@m410.us> <1294698122.16993.251.camel@erebus.lan> <1294762990.16993.336.camel@erebus.lan> <20F997C7-647B-4F1C-90DF-B649749FA229@m410.us> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:38:20 +0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cassandra 0.7.0 Release in Riptano public repository? From: Rauan Maemirov To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e89eef78b8f049c151649 --90e6ba6e89eef78b8f049c151649 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 When I try `rpm -i riptano-release-5-1.el6.noarch.rpm`, it just freeze. Does repository work? 2011/1/12 Michael Fortin > Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed replies Eric, it's much > appreciated. > > Mike > > On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Eric Evans wrote: > > > 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 > > > > --90e6ba6e89eef78b8f049c151649 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When I try `rpm -i riptano-release-5-1.el6.noarch.rpm`,=A0it just freeze. D= oes repository work?

2011/1/12 Michael F= ortin <mikee@m410.us<= /a>>
Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed rep= lies Eric, it's much appreciated.

Mike

On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Eric Evans wrote:

> 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 ope= n
>> 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 g= et 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, t= hey're
> all available in one view here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset= =3Dtrue&mode=3Dhide&sorter/order=3DDESC&sorter/field=3Dpriority= &resolution=3D-1&pid=3D12310865&fixfor=3D12314820
>
> But, it's pretty fluid for the first few months after a new releas= e.
>
>> And, just to be clear, I'm not questioning the maintainers app= roach,
>> just humbling asking for a little more clarification. =A0Cassandra= 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 lit= tle.
>> 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 so= urce
> projects. =A0And, in addition to being subjective, your criteria diffe= rs
> from that of many people. =A0It might make things easier to just versi= on
> some future release 1.0 and be done with it, but I'd rather be hon= est
> 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.<= br> > We've been using the minor like a major, and the revision like a m= inor,
> (and we haven't had need for a revision). =A0We'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 produc= tion-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
>


--90e6ba6e89eef78b8f049c151649--