hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suraj Menon <menonsur...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Skip minor release, and prepare 1.0
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:21:12 GMT
I am +1 for frequent releases. However, I believe that it should go with
more test automation and some feedback on the attempts for the same. I
think it is high time we started using cobertura or tools similar to
cobertura(Clover is not free) and findbugs.

And we do have some dependencies between few features. Please take a look
into the image I uploaded in the roadmap wiki page.

-Suraj


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com>wrote:

> I agree that would be good for us to have feedback with releases,
> instead of silently working until accomplishing version 1.0.
>
> Considering frequent releases[1][2], we may break e.g. version 0.7
> into smaller parts and release them frequently by prioritizing tasks.
> For example, if the task `Add Hama to BigTop distribution' is
> considered that can be done earlier compared to the rest of tasks in
> the roadmap. Then we can release it first (after that feature is
> accomplished); thus users who want that feature can take that release
> for evaluation, etc., and feedback if any issue. So do other tasks. By
> prioritization, software is released based on each feature and in a
> smaller cycle. The benefit is we can release as many/ earlier as
> possible without tasks being blocked by features that require longer
> time to finish.
>
> Therefore, I suppose we can:
> - discuss the tasks prioritization for the roadmap version 0.7 (or
> move tasks to the next version release, etc.)
> - work on the tasks in parallel.
> - release a version (iteratively) if a feature is accomplished.
>
>
> [1].
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming_practices#Small_releases
> [2]. http://xprogramming.com/what-is-extreme-programming/#small
>
>
> On 19 August 2013 17:20, Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org> 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 ...
> >
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message