hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <Milind.Bhandar...@emc.com>
Subject Re: Naming of Hadoop releases
Date Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:34:46 GMT
I agree with Konstantin. In previous discussion, I had suggested
simultaneous renumbering, but for some reason it was not considered.

(For history buffs: I upgraded from Windows 1.0 to Windows 3.1 straight.
Windows 2.0 did not have many features that made it compelling to upgrade.
It did not seem odd to skip a number then, and I don't see why it would
now. I also skipped Windows Vista and upgraded from XP to Windows 7, even
if Vista was touted as a major release.)

- Milind

Milind Bhandarkar
Chief Architect, Greenplum Labs, Data Computing Division, EMC
+1-650-523-3858 (W)
+1-408-666-8483 (M)

On 3/19/12 12:04 PM, "Konstantin Shvachko" <shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hadoop naming is definitely confusing. And having Hadoop-1 did not
>make it less confusing for users.
>> Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and
>It was released on November 29, 2011.
>eBay is actively using it as of today.
>If the goal of renaming branches is to make things less confusing
>about Hadoop, then I agree with people saying we should do a
>simultaneous rename of the branches. That is
>Current 0.22 -> 2
>Current 0.23 -> 3
>It almost sounds like release .22 does not deserve a whole number,
>only a fraction. But having .22 renamed to 1.5 creates a confusion
>that it belongs to Hadoop-1 line, which is not exactly the message we
>want to send out.
>Also I don't know what the number of commits reflects, and whether it
>is good or not to have many for a particular release.
>If the community decides to rename .22 to 2 I will be glad to work on it.
>On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Todd Papaioannou
><drluckyspin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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
>> ToddP
>>> 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
>>>> 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

View raw message