hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Edward J. Yoon" <edwardy...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Skip minor release, and prepare 1.0
Date Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:20:32 GMT
> Sorry just want to double check what's the plan. Doesn't get point
> about skip release until reaching version 1.0. Are we going to just
> release some minor fixes and other (significant) patches will be
> released after version 1.0? Or ...

No release until reaching version 1.0. If I remember correctly, some
people wanted.

But I still dislike, because this can cause no-feedback and make
participation difficult.

> For release procedure, probably we can borrow ideas from continuous
> integration where IIRC software is released as earlier as possible,
> and release cycle is reduced so that problems can be discovered and
> fixed earlier. That seems to be suitable for our scenario.

If we follow your idea, what should we do?

See http://wiki.apache.org/hama/RoadMap - Do you think we can finish
0.7 within a year? If not, should we separate them into 0.8, 0.9 ...,
etc? Is there a way to work in parallel?

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sorry just want to double check what's the plan. Doesn't get point
> about skip release until reaching version 1.0. Are we going to just
> release some minor fixes and other (significant) patches will be
> released after version 1.0? Or ...
>
> For release procedure, probably we can borrow ideas from continuous
> integration where IIRC software is released as earlier as possible,
> and release cycle is reduced so that problems can be discovered and
> fixed earlier. That seems to be suitable for our scenario.
>
>
> On 18 August 2013 16:11, Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org> wrote:
>> I mean, "put all TODO things into 1.0 roadmap, and just skip release
>> until reach version 1.0".
>>
>>> people would compare MRv2, Giraph to Hama; and would think that MRv2,
>>> and Giraph would be more better/ stable than Hama because of FT, etc.
>>
>> Spark also supports full fault-tolerance, and comparison has been
>> already started.. Spark shows good performance, giraph shows good
>> scalability. Hama has good performance and very flexible interface,
>> but we are in gray zone.
>>
>>> +0
>>
>> I'm -0. I think we have to cut periodically.
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> +0
>>>
>>> Personally I would not go for 1.0 now though the  release for 1.0 is
>>> ok for me. My reason is people may expect functions such as FT to be
>>> ready when it's in the version 1.0. Also it might be inevitably that
>>> people would compare MRv2, Giraph to Hama; and would think that MRv2,
>>> and Giraph would be more better/ stable than Hama because of FT, etc.
>>> regardless of differences between projects.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 August 2013 16:33, Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I was planning to cut a 0.6.3 release candidate (Hadoop 2.0 compatible
>>>> version), however it seems the age of compete for the preoccupancy is
>>>> past. So we don't need to hurry up now. Moreover, we are currently
>>>> adding a lot of changes, and still need to be improved a lot. We knows
>>>> what we should do exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think we can skip minor release and prepare 1.0 now?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
>>>> @eddieyoon
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
>> @eddieyoon



-- 
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
@eddieyoon

Mime
View raw message