hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Papaioannou <drluckys...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Naming of Hadoop releases
Date Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:04:31 GMT
On Mar 18, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

> 9.22 can't be considered as 1.5 because it is the major release from 1.0 (old
> 0.20.x). Besides, by declaring it as 1.5 we'll be planting future confusion of
> the same sort that happened around 0.20* line.
> And last but not least, the same  discussion has happened in the past around
> 1.0 release time like http://is.gd/x1fVqu

Yes I remember it well, but AFAIC there was no clear decision on 0.22 or 0.23. There were
competing proposals and opinions and basically what happened was that we punted the decision
on anything other than 0.20->1.0 until a later date. But, that later date is now approaching
and we continue to call the current release in question 0.23. Hence my original email.

Personally, I do not believe 0.22 is sufficiently major to call it 2.0 and push 0.23 to 3.0.
But that's just my $0.02. I don't feel strongly enough to worry about what the outcome is.

What I _do_ care strongly about is that we get some resolution and stop using 0.23 as a release
name. It's confusing to the market and the customer base, and while we have made great progress
in simplifying things with the 1.0 release moniker, we need to continue to make progress.


> Cos
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:41PM, Todd Papaioannou wrote:
>> All,
>> With the upcoming release of 0.23, isn't it about time that we started calling 0.23
"Hadoop 2.0" instead?
>> While the numbering system may make sense to everyone here, to the rest of the world
it's going to be hella confusing for 0.23 to come out after Hadoop 1.0 was released. Since
0.23 has MR2 in it I think that it would make sense to call it 2.0. Also, I think would really
help with the brand awareness/perception of the project in the wider customer audience.
>> I know there are some other potential releases out there too, so my overall suggestion
would be:
>> Current 1.X -> Remains 1.x (as new bug fix releases are released)
>> Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and released)
>> Current 0.23 -> Gets renamed to 2.0
>> Remember, a large part of the reason for renaming 0.20.xx to 1.0 was to make project
progress more understandable to the rest of the world. We should ensure we don't regress with
the next major release.
>> Thoughts?
>> ToddP

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message