Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4BB56CFD.6010301@cloudera.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:05:17 -0700
From: Amr Awadallah <aaa@cloudera.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 ThunderBrowse/3.2.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
CC: Allen Wittenauer <awittenauer@linkedin.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process
References: <C7DA5ED0.4003%awittenauer@linkedin.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7DA5ED0.4003%awittenauer@linkedin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 >  Companies wanting a 1.0 product could always pay Cloudera and get a 
v2 product.

lol :) good point Allen, lets please *not* adopt a 1.0 labeling for 
Apache Hadoop :)

Seriously though, to avoid my previous comment about 1.0 labeling being 
misinterpreted, though I think the 1.0 labeling is important, I think it 
is much more *urgent* and *important* to get the release cycle back in 
order, which should focus on getting that done first.

-- amr

On 4/1/2010 2:31 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
>
> On 4/1/10 2:15 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
> <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>  wrote:
>    
>> In terms of the significance of the 1.0 labeling, I think it's important for
>> adoption.
>>      
> Companies wanting a 1.0 product could always pay Cloudera and get a v2
> product. ;)
>
>