hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <Milind.Bhandar...@emc.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0?
Date Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:44:40 GMT

You beat me to start this discussion :-)

I was at Apachecon recently, and based on the questions and comments from
several attendees for the hadoop sessions, as well as the hadoop meetup
afterwards, it was clear that users are perplexed about our versioning

In addition, Doug and Owen also have publicly stated (in #hw2011 and
#apachecon11 respectively) that 0.20.2xx should be considered a 1.0.

There is a perception (no doubt caused by 0.19 and 0.21 *abandonment*)
that releases ending in odd numbers are unstable releases. So, some users
were confused when some speakers urged folks to try out 0.23.

I second your proposal that 0.20.2xx should be called 1.x.

Based on some encouraging results reported on 0.22, I propose that it
should be called 2.0.

Which makes 0.23 as the 3.0.

So, +1!

- milind

On 11/14/11 2:11 PM, "Arun C Murthy" <acm@hortonworks.com> wrote:

>Apache Hadoop has come a long way since our humble beginnings. As a
>community we've made significant progress, even in 2011 - we've had 3
>releases off the branch-0.20-security (0.20.205 being the latest) and we
>just released 0.23.0 last week, our first major release off trunk in a
>With hadoop-0.20.205 we finally have an Apache release with both security
>and HBase support, both critical for the growing ecosystem.
>With that, I think it's time to call it as hadoop-1.0. The 1.0 moniker
>has something we've wanted for a while and I think it's time for us to
>just ship it. Linus did something similar with GNU/Linux 3.0.
>Yes, we could add more features or better it along many dimensions (ala
>hadoop-0.23), but right now we have a pretty decent piece of software
>i.e.  the feature set in hadoop-0.20.205 is compelling and widely used.
>We could call hadoop-0.23 (or 0.22) as 2.0 etc. I do think we, as a
>community, can support compatibility in the hadoop-1.x series, which is
>the essential ingredient. This isn't a brand new idea, Doug suggested
>this a long while ago.

View raw message