hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering for stable 2.8 and beyond
Date Sat, 25 Apr 2015 18:55:09 GMT
I don't think it makes sense to imprint the release quality with its
version.
They should be separate. And our recommendation for the quality can be
reflected in the documentation.
(1) is the way to go.

We had "alpha" imprinted in 2.0.5-alpha version, but both 2.0.5 and 2.0.6
releases were quite stable, for me and many others.

Thanks,
--Konst

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
vinodkv@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Forking the thread.
>
> In the previous 2.7.1 thread [1], there were enough yays to my proposal to
> wait for a bug-fix release or two before calling a 2.x release stable.
> There were some concerns about the naming.
>
> We have two options, taking 2.8 as an example
>  (1) Release 2.8.0, call it as an alpha in documentation and release
> notes, wait for a 2.8.1/2.8.2 reasonably stable enough to be called as the
> first stable release of 2.8.
>  (2) Release 2.8.0-alpha, 2.8.0-beta etc before culminating in a 2.8.0
> stable release.
>
> (1) is what I preferred first up. This is what HBase used to do, and far
> beyond, in the linux kernel releases. It helps in scenarios where we are
> forced to downgrade a release, say due to major issues. We can simply
> announce it as not stable retroactively, change the pointers on our website
> and move on.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> +Vinod
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/ogzk4phj6wsdpssu
>
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
> vinodkv@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Sure, I agree it's better to have clear guidelines and scheme. Let me
> fork this thread about that.
> >
> > Re 2.7.0, I just forgot about the naming initially though I was clear in
> the discussion/voting. I so had to end up calling it alpha outside of the
> release artifact naming.
> >
> > Thanks
> > +Vinod
> >
> > On Apr 21, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I would also like to support Karthik's proposal on the release thread
> about
> >> version numbering. 2.7.0 being "alpha" is pretty confusing since all of
> the
> >> other 2.x releases since GA have been stable. I think users would
> prefer a
> >> version like "2.8.0-alpha1" instead, which is very clear and similar to
> >> what we did for 2.0 and 2.1. Then we release 2.8.0 when we're actually
> >> stable.
> >>
> >> I don't know if it's retroactively possible to do this for 2.7.0, but
> it's
> >> something to consider for the next 2.7 alpha or beta or whatever.
> >>
>
>

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