hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Fw: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process
Date Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:59:02 GMT
> From: Doug Cutting
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process
> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 3:40 PM
> Tom White wrote:
> > I think the focus should be on getting an alpha release
> > out, so I suggest we create a new 0.21 branch from trunk
> 
> Another release we might consider is 1.0 based on
> 0.20.  We'd then have releases that correspond to what
> folks are actually using in production.  This would
> also rationalize our release numbering, since many have
> expressed that 0.20 APIs should be treated as 1.0 APIs.
> 
> A 1.0 release based off 0.20 would give us a chance to
> state more precisely the 1.0 API that we intend to support
> long-term.  For example, we might un-mark the old
> mapreduce APIs as deprecated in a 1.0 release, and mark the
> new mapreduce APIs as experimental and unstable there.
> Programs that use only public stable features in 1.0 could
> be then guaranteed to run for a long-time hence.
> 
> It would also be good to get HDFS-200 into 1.0.  That
> might be the fastest route to providing a stable append for
> HBase.
> 
> Y!'s 0.20+security could become the basis of a 1.1
> release.
> 
> The next release from trunk might then be called 2.0
> alpha.  It would support 1.0 APIs, but they'd be
> deprecated in favor of newer API for mapreduce and
> filesystems.  We could pursue releasing 1.0 and 2.0
> alpha in parallel.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Doug
> 


      

Mime
View raw message