hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org>
Subject [DISCUSS] secure 0.20-based branch
Date Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:35:55 GMT
Please, let's not repeat the discussion on 0.20 as 1.0 in this thread.

I oppose the immortality of the 0.20 branch for the same reasons I
opposed it on common-dev. From a technical perspective, nothing has
been more destructive to the momentum and focus of this project than
the perpetual backporting and development on this branch. Yahoo,
Cloudera, and Facebook have their reasons for building fortresses on
the sands of 0.20, but Apache has a year of development beyond that.
It's a dark, unmapped jungle at the moment, but what you propose will
only exacerbate that problem by establishing a fourth settlement on
that sad oasis.

I vote no. Apache doesn't need to participate in the ridiculous
exercise of porting 0.20 to 0.22. Why not support (and aid) Tom's
effort to stabilize trunk? -C

On Friday, April 23, 2010, Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org> wrote:
> Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
> That 0.20 is not 1.0 quality, no matter how hard people want to believe it is true.
>
>
> Allen, my question was, "regardless of the naming" should we try to merge all of the
0.20-based security patches to a branch in Apache's subversion?
>
> As for the naming, the major release number does not make a claim about quality or features,
but rather about compatibility.  1.0 would presumably be the lowest quality and least featured
release in the 1.x series, but everything in that series should be API compatible with 1.0.
 Every release in the 2.x series might not be compatible with 1.0. Point releases add features,
dot releases add quality.  So 1.0.1 would only improve quality, while 1.1.0 would add features
while maintaining compatibility.
>
> Doug
>

Mime
View raw message