crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabriel Reid <gabriel.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: news, releases, etc.
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:41:26 GMT
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Josh Wills <jwills@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Gabriel Reid <gabriel.reid@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> Interesting point about potentially doing a 0.9.1 vs 0.10.0. The 0.8.x
>> branch seems to be running pretty parallel to the trunk, so it might
>> be an interesting idea to keep the point release schedule and
>> numbering somewhat aligned.
>>
>> Any other thoughts on that?
>>
>
> Yeah, not sure. I think we've never really done an 0.x.1 release because so
> much was always changing on the API. I know we had a few small-ish changes
> this time, but nothing all that major, which made me think that an 0.9.1
> would be okay. This felt like primarily a bug fix release.
>

I just took a look through the list of issues for what is currently
called 0.10.0, and there are a few that were intentionally left out of
the 0.8.x branch to avoid breaking compatibility. The ones I saw were:

* CRUNCH-324 - Sample.reservoirSample method name is spelled incorrectly
* CRUNCH-357 - Allow AvroMode overrides to be less global
* CRUNCH-216 - Transpose arguments in MapsideJoinStrategy.join

CRUNCH-324 and CRUNCH-357 are actual changes to the API, so people
using those parts of the API won't be able to compile without updating
their code -- however, the pieces of the API that are changed are
probably not used by that many people. CRUNCH-216 added @Deprecated to
one or two methods, with the intention of a gradual API change.

This has me (mostly) convinced that we should do a 0.10.0 release
instead of a 0.9.1 (although the bulk of the things are still bug
fixes and improvements).

- Gabriel

Mime
View raw message