drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Parth Chandra <par...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Drill Version after 1.9.0, etc.
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:50:40 GMT
Aren't we sidestepping the real questions -

    What, if any, are the breaking changes we are looking at in the near
(or distant) term?
    If we don't have any such changes on the horizon, then when are we
going to do a 2.0 release?

Before we finalize this I would like us to have the criteria for moving to
2.0 decided.

Ideally, we would want a roadmap of items that we consider breaking
changes. (I would also recommend starting a 2.0 branch for those breaking
changes).  I know some client side breaking changes slipped in without
causing any harm in a couple of previous releases, so is this even a
criterion? If it is, then let's have a plan (even a somewhat hopeful one)
for 2.0.

Parth


On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Neeraja Rentachintala <
nrentachintala@maprtech.com> wrote:

> +1 on continuing to 1.10 version after 1.9 release.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Aman Sinha <amansinha@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > (A) I am leaning to 1.10 for the reasons already mentioned in your email.
> > (B) sounds good.
> > (C) Does it matter if there are a few commits in master branch already ?
> > What's the implication of just updating the pom files (not force-push).
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <skatkam@maprtech.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > (A) I had asked the question about what the release version should be
> > > after 1.9.0. Since this is part of the next release plan, a vote is
> > > required based on the discussion. For approval, the vote requires a
> lazy
> > > majority of active committers over 3 days.
> > >
> > > Here are some comments from that thread:
> > >
> > > Quoting Paul:
> > >
> > > > For release numbers, 1.10 (then 1.11, 1.12, …) seems like a good
> idea.
> > > >
> > > > At first it may seem odd to go to 1.10 from 1.9. Might people get
> > > confused between 1.10 and 1.1.0? But, there is precedence. Tomcat’s
> > latest
> > > 7-series release is 7.0.72. Java is on 8u112. And so on.
> > > >
> > > > I like the idea of moving to 2.0 later when the team introduces a
> major
> > > change, rather than by default just because the numbers roll around.
> For
> > > example, Hadoop when to 2.x when YARN was introduced. Impala appears to
> > > have moved to 2.0 when they added Spill to disk for some (all?)
> > operators.
> > >
> > >
> > > Quoting Parth:
> > >
> > > > Specifically what did you want to discuss about the release number
> > after
> > > 1.9?  Ordinarily you would just go to 2.0. The only reason for holding
> > off
> > > on 2.0, that I can think of, is if you want to make breaking changes in
> > the
> > > 2.0 release and those are not going to be ready for the next release
> > cycle.
> > > Are any dev's planning on such breaking changes? If so we should
> discuss
> > > that (or any other reason we might have for deferring 2.0) in a
> separate
> > > thread?
> > > > I'm +0 on any version number we chose.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am +1 on Paul’s suggestion for 1.10.0, unless, as Parth noted, we
> plan
> > > to make breaking changes in the next release cycle.
> > >
> > > @Jacques, any comments? You had mentioned about this a while back [1].
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > (B) Until discussion on (A) is complete, which may take a while, I
> > propose
> > > we move the master to 1.10.0-SNAPSHOT to unblock committing to master
> > > branch. If there are no objections, I will do this tomorrow, once 1.9.0
> > > release artifacts are propagated.
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > (C) I noticed there are some changes committed to master branch before
> > the
> > > commit that moves to the next snapshot version. Did we face this issue
> in
> > > the past? If so, how did we resolve the issue? Is 'force push' an
> option?
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Sudheesh
> > >
> > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/drill-dev/201604.mbox/%
> > > 3CCAJrw0OTiXLnmW25K0aQtsVmh3A4vxfwZzvHntxeYJjPdd-PnYQ%40mail.gmail.com
> > %3E
> > > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/drill-dev/201604.mbox/%
> > > 3CCAJrw0OTiXLnmW25K0aQtsVmh3A4vxfwZzvHntxeYJjPdd-PnYQ@mail.gmail.com
> %3E>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message