Mailing-List: contact dev-help@htrace.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@htrace.incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rarecactus@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rarecactus@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADcMMgGvXE5QtVHONuaea5YvCEE8+=4SZuiF4NNhOzbD+qTtRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADcMMgHFjYoPLkS5fVLxxNQd5mBm_+C0m5jt3RPtHmy0WFtEow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+qbEUNSsz2EYRPA_jREjKQAEmb9vkhJOzdiYQN3Nwa8K_6q9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANZa=Gu88mkOTsCHs6UFcyPM=y_YKwJJsp77h7gAN2OyGaJOVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<26D0B901-12DA-4D83-9BB5-85CA7FF2B82B@gmail.com>
	<CADcMMgGvXE5QtVHONuaea5YvCEE8+=4SZuiF4NNhOzbD+qTtRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 23:48:18 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+qbEUMUJK34Undy2094PZpP244OdbC8vko1oebrpLVjHSf26Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What version should be the first apache htrace be? 4.0.0 or
 1.0.0?
From: Colin McCabe <cmccabe@alumni.cmu.edu>
To: dev@htrace.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Yeah.  I like the idea of doing a release soon so that we can start
updating the consumers (such as HBase and HDFS) to import the new
org.apache. htrace stuff rather than the org.htrace stuff.  It would
be nice to see a few minor interface improvements like HTRACE-1 and
HTRACE-2 in the new release as well.  I think that would be easy to
do.  In general, though, I think that a 3.1.0 release would provide
the same level of functionality as the 3.0.4, and maybe the next
release is 4.0.0?

cheers,
Colin

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What we did for Phoenix is make an initial ASF release that was the
>> granted code with a package name search-and-replace and minor version
>> increment. This let us focus on all the Apache packaging and release
>> concerns like NOTICE file wording, RAT compliance, etc. and provided an
>> opportunity for existing users to migrate to an ASF artifact at low risk -
>> just package renames. Then we made a major version increment and put in
>> some significant new features for that next release.
>>
>>
>>
> I think we should do this.
>
> Lets stamp it 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT and do a release *tout de suite* that is
> effectually the same as our 3.0.4 only it has new apache packaging and then
> move forward from there.
>
> Letting above hang another few days in case more opinions otherwise will
> move on the above
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
>
>
>>
>> > On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:36 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think going backwards to 1.0 would be confusing for any existing users.
>> > Maybe make the -incubating releases pickup 3.1.x with the intention of
>> the
>> > first graduated release being 4.0.0. Could be seen as artificially
>> > inflating the version numbers, but I don't think that matters too much. I
>> > assume (prefer) we'll follow the guidelines of semantic versioning.
>> >
>> > -n
>> >
>> >> On Friday, December 5, 2014, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@alumni.cmu.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I looked at
>> >>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-versioning
>> >> and it doesn't say whether we need to start at 1.  Hmm.
>> >>
>> >> I think either way could work.  There is stuff from org.htrace up on
>> >> Maven central, but since we're moving to org.apache.htrace, we won't
>> >> conflict if we choose to go back to 1.0.0.  I don't really have any
>> >> preference between 1.0.0 or 4.0.0.
>> >>
>> >> best,
>> >> Colin
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net <javascript:;>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> org.htrace was at 3.0.4
>> >>>
>> >>> The next release could be 4.0.0.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or we could roll back and make it 1.0.0?
>> >>>
>> >>> Any opinions out there?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> St.Ack
>> >>
>>