Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E534E71D1 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 32247 invoked by uid 500); 15 Nov 2011 22:26:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 32176 invoked by uid 500); 15 Nov 2011 22:26:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 32168 invoked by uid 99); 15 Nov 2011 22:26:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:26:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.82.176] (HELO mail-wy0-f176.google.com) (74.125.82.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:26:12 +0000 Received: by wyg10 with SMTP id 10so3699642wyg.35 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:25:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.81.73 with SMTP id y9mr32528421wix.37.1321395952079; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:25:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.79.40 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:25:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <10C9906C-55B5-445E-8398-A021E49596B4@hortonworks.com> <4EC23796.8080702@apache.org> From: Ted Dunning Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:25:31 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0? To: general@hadoop.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428cb854d35e04b1cd7843 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d04428cb854d35e04b1cd7843 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Steve Loughran > wrote: > > > On 15/11/11 06:07, Dhruba Borthakur wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 to making the upcoming 0.23 release as 2.0. > > >> > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > And leave the 0.20.20x chain as is, just because people are used to it > > > > > > > +1 to Steve's proposal. Renaming 0.20 is too big a pain at this point. > > > > I really don't see it that way. I'm continuing (up to and including last > week) to have to explain the version numbering for 0.20, 0.20.2xx, 0.21, > 0.22, and 0.23. Obviously the people who are willing to do the work don't > feel that it is a waste of time or they wouldn't be signing up to do the > work. This smells like Java 1.4 versus Java 6 all over again. Explaining why 0.20 became 1.0 when 0.21 didn't become anything is a pretty strange exercise. If a marketing person somewhere is totally set on making 0.23 be 2.0, just do that and be done. There doesn't have to be a 1.0 version. --f46d04428cb854d35e04b1cd7843--