hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: Version number of next release
Date Thu, 20 May 2010 22:50:30 GMT
Lets not call it 0.21.  I wanted to call it 0.66.0 so we could do a
logo for it: http://people.apache.org/~stack/66.jpg

I'm good w/ 0.90.0 or 0.30.0.


On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Hi HBasers,
> Time for the second proposal of the day!
> I'd like to start a discussion around the version number of the upcoming
> "durable HBase" release. The release I'm referring to is the one currently
> being worked towards on trunk, and the one that FB and Cloudera plan to work
> with for production clusters round about Q3 2010.
> The current name for this release is 0.21. I think this is going to cause
> user confusion due to the previous "lockstep versioning" that HBase has had
> with regard to Hadoop. I think many people will assume they need to use
> Hadoop 0.21 (being billed as an unstable release at least for 0.21.0) and
> generally not quite understand why our version number is the same if we have
> no tie to the Hadoop version. So, I am generally -1 on calling this next
> HBase release 0.21.0.
> The other factor is that I think we all see this upcoming release as a major
> step up from 0.20. Namely, it provides true durability of every write, much
> improved cluster stability, a new build system, replication, and countless
> other improvements that everyone's been cranking on. I'm sure given the
> number of people now working on the project, we'll see even a few more great
> improvements pop up before we're ready to freeze.
> Some have suggested we jump all the way to HBase 1.0. I think this is a bit
> ambitious, as 1.0 implies a level of API stability we're not quite ready to
> commit to. Perhaps we can go there some time next year, but don't want to
> open that can of worms yet :)
> So, beyond not liking either 0.21 or 1.0, I don't have a strong opinion.
> Some have suggested 0.90, as it is lexically much bigger than 0.20 but
> clearly not 1.0 yet. Others have suggested 0.30, to give us room to go to
> 0.40, 0.50, etc before a 1.0.
> Thoughts?
> -Todd
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera

View raw message