Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of todd@cloudera.com designates
 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+RK=_DYtV5FY0qeusA=U6DnWof05jtwBEPvqYLgyzwxYiO+og@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+RK=_CNDB-SP=QvFFGdWbrSrKjO+jd_W2v4reCKE+H7HN9adw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgHm+kh_SttkryZfBHO2VWBGjTAUTSONa_msyehbGqKTaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_B74byUjS6cTy+V5td=Bfefiu1+1UFZ6n0mbk8nTBGXmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62ydNHshje9-i7gRpqJ2kNpJLQykhzbR-5wB8Csj8mTJXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_C7xKrwtBi-UFjHHdgBkft-zKo7VMjTOrA=WnkO6jEBjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62wW7GFEwez8PNBBJgNW8zp4yj3aBOJLk+6_zdcoZFa-ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_Bk4eGscCK7yvf=o4G2EkCi60to+mEq8_bcmUbY-sppnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcDmSvS1S9pM4MtkYT_RLzOqp82Jw5pgCN45Zn1JfyS2ax1LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_B2xyD09p4XJ+n_u5qRU8qRe2ke0JiqPvSewauDSjptBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADY20s6PSDcEDTkCLrM1kvWn87C+s_DTD9RgGVQpN+2BZOOHNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_DXOeht4Yn7BZC++SFeMQ+0Zs42eY00V90BCQzC41jfVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgG67_M44Ev3qqQC1Ognc6E=_ERmwF_LXPdpASC_-MFWYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_Bwd0Z59ozQgXxqiaq8gqsZ5R1-8FTreVW0se1mZb8YVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a0-mzVHJXtx8hhxPjyBjFhqUem9of2i3xAny+S_W=8Z-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_DYtV5FY0qeusA=U6DnWof05jtwBEPvqYLgyzwxYiO+og@mail.gmail.com>
From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:13:35 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CADY20s4yHGCbK1WDGyL1yevixzwxE=tDqczHVk3Mn5kTwFvqQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Sorting out issues for 0.96 for (eventual) release
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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