hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process
Date Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:05:18 GMT
Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> My main point was that suddenly people seem to be hot to declare something 1.0.  I'm
trying to understand why [...]

My rationale for suggesting a release named 1.0 was that I prefer that 
release numbers say something about compatibility.  The compatibility 
rules we've used for Hadoop (which are not too different that what most 
would assume about versions) are that pre-1.0 releases may break 
compatibility with one another, while post-1.0 we'd only try to move 
folks to new, primary APIs at major releases.  Programs written against 
1.0 would run against any 1.x release, but may require modifications 
before they'd run against any 2.x or 3.x release.  So a 1.0 release 
implies that we have APIs that we intend to support for considerably 
longer than a 0.x release.

It's now been proposed, post-fact, that the "classic" APIs in 0.20 will 
be supported long-term.  So a 1.0 release with these APIs undeprecated, 
would rationalize our version numbers, as we further refine their 
eventual replacements, what would become the 2.0 APIs.

We've long-delayed declaring 1.0 because we were afraid to commit to 
supporting a given API for a longer term.  Now folks are willing to make 
that long-term commitment to an API, yet seem reluctant to call it 1.0.

I suppose there are lots of other things that folks could think that a 
1.0 release implies.  I've always argued that release numbers should be 
about compatibility and compatibility only.

Doug

Mime
View raw message