hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Sorting out issues for 0.96 for (eventual) release
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:34:47 GMT
I dont see why odd/even is better than adding -dev/-beta suffix,
which explicitly indicates that this is a development release, rather than
the user having to consult to documentation to understand it. But agreed
with John in that we don't want to go into a never ending discussion of
which versioning schema to go. If historically, 0.89/0.90 worked well, we
might as well go with it.


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I wrote up some stuff on this back in the 0.89 timeframe here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Hbase/HBaseVersions
>
> Could probably do with a refresh of the text, but should mostly still
> apply.
>
> -Todd
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > I propose to avoid -dev or -beta, and stick with the even/odd scheme we
> > used for 0.89. We also appended a date stamp instead of minor version,
> e.g.
> > 0.89.20100726. Documenting how this departure from our usual numbering
> > signifies a "developer preview", or whatever we'd like to call it, sounds
> > like a good idea.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think that branching scheme makes sense.
> >>
> >> We should probably define the intent of even/odd versioning and compat
> >> rules on the webpage (the how to release instructions and on the
> >> download links) if we are going to do it so we don't have to explain
> >> it over and over.  If we do this ahead of time,  everyone should have
> >> the same expectations knows what this means.
> >>
> >> Also, we could consider probably playing some games with adding -dev
> >> or -beta after an odd version number.  I say this with some
> >> trepidation - over in Hadoop-land they there are some contentious
> >> discussions about version numbering and naming that I'd personally
> >> like to avoid.
> >>
> >> Jon.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> How do we want to run it?  Branch 0.96 and then 0.95s are branched
> from
> >> >> 0.96?  (As in the past, 0.95.0, 0.95.1, etc., would come with no
> >> guarantees
> >> >> other than it basically works and it is allowed that 0.95.1 may not
> be
> >> >> compatible with 0.95.0, etc.).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> >    - Andy
> >> >
> >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> >> > (via Tom White)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >> // jon@cloudera.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

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