hive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Created branch 1.0
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:49:04 GMT
If we do a 1.0.0 release there is no problem with us later releasing 14.1
or a 14.2. I think everyone would understand that the 14.2 being released
after 1.0.0 would likely have back ported features. Releasing a 15.0 after
1.0 would not make as much sense as we probably do not want two active
branches.

What I am most concerned about is we have been doing hive releases against
snapshots of Apache|Other projects. Releases should not depend on
snapshots. If the other project is not mature enough to have a release we
should probably not be depending on it.

I understand why this happens but I think it is a bit hokie. Would anyone
be happy if hive depended on
"git-edwardcapriolo-coolutils-0.0.0-snapshot-5". So if we are having the
"serious 1.0 talk" we should avoid things like this.



On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Xuefu Zhang <xzhang@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Hi Thejas/Alan,
>
> From all the argument, I think there was an assumption that the proposed
> 1.0 release will be imminent and 0.15 will happen far after that. Based on
> that assumption, 0.15 will become 1.1, which is greater in scope than 1.0.
> However, this assumption may not be true. The confusion will be significant
> if 0.15 is released early as 0.15 before 0.14.1 is released as 1.0.
>
> Another concern is that, the proposed release of 1.0 is a subset of of
> Hive's functionality, and for major releases users are expecting major
> improvement in functionality as well as stability. Mutating from 0.14.1
> release seems falling short in that expectation.
>
> Having said that, I'd think it makes more sense to release 0.15 as 0.15,
> and later we release 1.0 as the major release that supersedes any previous
> releases. That will fulfill the expectations of a major release.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuefu
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Alan Gates <gates@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I had one clarifying question for Brock and Xuefu.  Was your proposal to
> > still call the branch from trunk you are planning in a few days 0.15 (and
> > hence release it as 0.15) and have 1.0 be a later release?  Or did you
> want
> > to call what is now 0.15 1.0?  If you wanted 1.0 to be post 0.15, are you
> > ok with stipulating that the next release from trunk after 0.15 (what
> would
> > have been 0.16) is 1.0?
> >
> > Alan.
> >
> >   Thejas Nair <thejas@hortonworks.com>
> >  January 22, 2015 at 12:04
> > Brock, Xuefu,
> >
> > We seem to have trouble reaching to a consensus here. (Please see my
> > arguments why I don't see this causing confusions, and let me know if
> > it changes your opinion).
> > How should we move forward ? Do you think we need to go through a
> > formal vote regarding the release plan as per hive by-laws ?
> >
> >
> >   Thejas Nair <thejas@hortonworks.com>
> >  January 22, 2015 at 10:38
> > I don't see any reasons for confusion.
> > From a user perspective, 1.0 is going to have a super set of changes of
> > 0.14.
> > 1.1 (based on planned 0.15 release) will have a super set of changes in
> > 1.0 .
> >
> >
> >   Xuefu Zhang <xzhang@cloudera.com>
> >  January 21, 2015 at 22:47
> > I strongly believe that the concept of 1.0 out of a branch as proposed is
> > creating the greatest confusion in the community. If for any reason that
> > 1.0 cannot be cut from the trunk, that means that we are not ready and so
> > shall wait until so before considering such a release. Thus, I'd -1 on
> this
> > proposal.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Xuefu
> >
> >
> >   Gopal V <gopalv@apache.org>
> >  January 21, 2015 at 22:29
> > On 1/21/15, 7:09 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
> >
> > Too be clear I strongly feel creating 1.0 from 0.14 will be confusing. In
> > fact it's already crrated confusion amongst folks on this list.
> > Furthermore
> > 1.0 should be created from trunk and be a superset of previous releases.
> >
> >
> > I don't think there is any confusion over that - 1.0 is a long-term
> > maintenance which is going to be a super-set of all *critical fixes* made
> > from here on (emphasis).
> >
> > In fact, a long-term support release should be released off an actively
> > updated maintenance branch, which has been baked-in and never from the
> > trunk.
> >
> > Those who have followed the earlier mails would realize that the most
> > important "feature" about this branch is to stick to only long term
> > maintenance - which in effect is adopting HBase's successful idea.
> >
> > That is just plain solid engineering.
> >
> > Anyway, it would be in the best interests of the larger community, to
> find
> > out who else finds that approach confusing.
> >
> > Brock, I'm not sure whether you are confused or whether you think other
> > people will be confused (and if so, why?).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gopal
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Vikram Dixit K <vikram.dixit@gmail.com>
> > <vikram.dixit@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > @Brock,
> >
> > I created this branch from 0.14. I created this branch based on the email
> > thread discussing 1.0,
> >
> > http://search-hadoop.com/m/8er9YGX8g2
> >
> > where you had said you agreed with the suggestion from Enis from HBase
> who
> > said that we should base 1.0 on a stable version rather than making it a
> > feature release.
> >
> > @Lefty,
> >
> > You are right in that branch 0.14 has been made 1.0. You are also right
> > that 0.15 would be 1.1.0 and we should capture that.
> >
> > Regards
> > Vikram.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas@hortonworks.com>
> > <thejas@hortonworks.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Lefty,
> > Yes, you are right. Anything that is not fixed in 0.14 and is fixed in
> > 1.0 would have 1.0 as the fixed version.
> > Yes, 0.15.0 would then become 1.1.0 .
> >
> > Yes, it is a good idea to document this translation somewhere.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Lefty Leverenz <leftyleverenz@gmail.com
> >
> > <leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > So my initial impression was correct -- instead of calling it release
> > > 0.14.1, we're calling it 1.0.0. Or am I hopelessly confused?
> > >
> > > Will 0.15.0 be 1.1.0? (If so, I'll need to edit a dozen wikidocs.)
> > >
> > > Will release numbers get changed in JIRA issues? Presumably that's not
> > > possible in old comments, so we should document the equivalences
> > > somewhere. A JIRA issue for that with a well-phrased summary could help
> > > future searchers.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lefty
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Eugene Koifman <
> > ekoifman@hortonworks.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> could we include HIVE-9390 & HIVE-9404? This has been committed to
> > trunk.
> > >> They add useful retry logic to support insert/update/delete
> > functionality.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vikram Dixit K <
> >
> > vikram.dixit@gmail.com
> >
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Folks,
> > >> >
> > >> > I have created branch 1.0 as discussed earlier. All the jiras that
> > have
> > >> > 0.14 as the fix version should be committed to 1.0 branch instead.
> >
> > The
> >
> > >> list
> > >> > of jiras that are being tracked for 1.0 are as follows:
> > >> >
> > >> > HIVE-8485
> > >> > HIVE-9053
> > >> > HIVE-8996.
> > >> >
> > >> > Please let me know if you want to include more jiras here. I am
> > working
> > >> on
> > >> > generating javadocs for this. I hope to have an RC out once these
> > jiras
> > >> get
> > >> > in.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards
> > >> > Vikram.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Vaibhav Gumashta <
> > >> > vgumashta@hortonworks.com
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Vikram,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'd like to get this in: HIVE-8890
> > >> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-8890>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-8890> [HiveServer2
> > dynamic
> > >> > > service discovery: use persistent ephemeral nodes curator recipe].
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > --Vaibhav
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Alan Gates <
> gates@hortonworks.com
> >
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I'd really like to get HIVE-8966 in there, since it breaks
> > streaming
> > >> > > > ingest. The patch is ready to go, it's just waiting on a
> >
> > review,
> >
> > >> which
> > >> > > > Owen has promised to do soon.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Alan.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Vikram Dixit K <vikram.dixit@gmail.com> <vikram.dixit@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > > > January 19, 2015 at 18:53
> > >> > > > Hi All,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I am going to be creating the branch 1.0 as mentioned earlier,
> > >> > tomorrow.
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > have the following list of jiras that I want to get committed
> >
> > to
> >
> > the
> > >> > > branch
> > >> > > > before creating an RC.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > HIVE-9112
> > >> > > > HIVE-6997 : Delete hive server 1
> > >> > > > HIVE-8485
> > >> > > > HIVE-9053
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Please let me know if you would like me to include any other
> > jiras.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks
> > >> > > > Vikram.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Vikram Dixit K <
> > >> > vikram.dixit@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > <vikram.dixit@gmail.com> <vikram.dixit@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thejas Nair <thejas@hortonworks.com> <thejas@hortonworks.com>
> > >> > > > January 1, 2015 at 10:23
> > >> > > > Yes, 1.0 is a good opportunity to remove some of the deprecated
> > >> > > > components. The change to remove HiveServer1 is already
there
> >
> > in
> >
> > >> trunk
> > >> > > > , we should include that.
> > >> > > > We can also use 1.0 release to clarify the public vs private
> > status
> > >> of
> > >> > > > some of the APIs.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks for the reminder about the documentation status of
> >
> > 1.0. I
> >
> > will
> > >> > > > look at some of them.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Lefty Leverenz
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Lefty Leverenz <leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> > <leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > December 31, 2014 at 0:12
> > >> > > > Oh, now I get it. The 1.0.0 *branch* of Hive. Okay.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -- Lefty
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Lefty Leverenz <
> > >> > > leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > <leftyleverenz@gmail.com> <leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Lefty Leverenz <leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> > <leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > December 30, 2014 at 23:43
> > >> > > > I thought x.x.# releases were just for fixups, x.#.x could
> >
> > include
> >
> > >> new
> > >> > > > features, and #.x.x were major releases that might have
some
> > >> > > > backward-incompatible changes. But I guess we haven't agreed
> >
> > on
> >
> > that.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > As for documentation, we still have 84 jiras with TODOC14
> >
> > labels
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > .
> > >> > > > Not to mention 25 TODOC13 labels
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ,
> > >> > > > eleven TODOC12
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC12
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC12
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ,
> > >> > > > seven TODOC11
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC11
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC11
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ,
> > >> > > > and seven TODOC10
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC10
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC10
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > .
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > That's 134 doc tasks to finish for a Hive 1.0.0 release
--
> > preferably
> > >> > by
> > >> > > > the release date, not after. Because expectations are higher
> >
> > for
> >
> > >> 1.0.0
> > >> > > > releases.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -- Lefty
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Vikram Dixit K <
> > >> > vikram.dixit@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > <vikram.dixit@gmail.com> <vikram.dixit@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Vikram Dixit K <vikram.dixit@gmail.com> <vikram.dixit@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > > > December 30, 2014 at 17:23
> > >> > > > Hi Folks,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Given that there have been a number of fixes that have gone
> >
> > into
> >
> > >> branch
> > >> > > > 0.14 in the past 8 weeks, I would like to make a release
> >
> > of
> > 0.14.1
> >
> > >> > soon.
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > would like to fix some of the release issues as well this
> >
> > time
> >
> > >> around.
> > >> > I
> > >> > > am
> > >> > > > thinking of some time around 15th January for getting a
RC
> >
> > out.
> >
> > >> Please
> > >> > > let
> > >> > > > me know if you have any concerns. Also, from a previous
thread,
> >
> > I
> >
> > >> would
> > >> > > > like to make this release the 1.0 branch of hive. The process
> >
> > for
> >
> > >> > getting
> > >> > > > jiras into this release is going to be the same as the previous
> > one
> > >> > viz.:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 1. Mark the jira with fix version 0.14.1 and update the
status
> >
> > to
> >
> > >> > > > blocker/critical.
> > >> > > > 2. If a committer +1s the patch for 0.14.1, it is good to
> >
> > go in.
> >
> > >> Please
> > >> > > > mention me in the jira in case you are not sure if the jira
> >
> > should
> >
> > >> make
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > for 0.14.1.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks
> > >> > > > Vikram.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > >> > > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual
> >
> > or
> >
> > >> > entity
> > >> > > > to which it is addressed and may contain information that
> >
> > is
> >
> > >> > > confidential,
> > >> > > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
> >
> > If
> > the
> >
> > >> > reader
> > >> > > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> > >> notified
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure
> >
> > or
> >
> > >> > > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited.
> >
> > If you
> >
> > have
> > >> > > > received this communication in error, please contact the
> >
> > sender
> >
> > >> > > immediately
> > >> > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > >> > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual
> >
> > or
> >
> > >> entity
> > >> > to
> > >> > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> > confidential,
> > >> > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
> >
> > the
> >
> > >> reader
> > >> > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> > notified
> > >> > that
> > >> > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure
> >
> > or
> >
> > >> > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
> >
> > have
> >
> > >> > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> > >> > immediately
> > >> > > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Nothing better than when appreciated for hard work.
> > >> > -Mark
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Eugene
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> > entity to
> > >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> >
> > confidential,
> >
> > >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> > reader
> > >> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> > that
> > >> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> > >> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > >> received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> > immediately
> > >> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
> >
> > to
> >
> > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> >
> > that
> >
> > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> >
> > immediately
> >
> > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nothing better than when appreciated for hard work.
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
> > to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> confidential,
> > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that
> > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> immediately
> > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >
>

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