incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Blur Feature Focus
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:23:02 GMT
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:

> What would you say is gating a 1.0? I realize it's just a number, but it
> does send a message


Not sure if its necessarily gating but I think the data model is a big
enough change to be pre-1.0. So is be supportive of 0.3 being the current
sod code and then implement just the public data model changes as a 1.0.

Then we need someone to bite the bullet and present at conferences and
meetups:)

--tim



> Patrick
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Garrett Barton <garrett.barton@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > That makes sense, cut 0.3.0 and begin 0.4.0.  Thumbs up here then!
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The current 0.3.0 is just 0.2.4 with only supporting Hadoop 2 and java
> 8.
> > > So perhaps we should release 0.3.0 and move to 0.4.0 with proposed
> > changes.
> > >
> > > Aaron
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Garrett Barton <
> > garrett.barton@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the current code base is 0.3.0 was there a 0.2.4 release cut?  I
> > would
> > > > very much like to see one release done with everything that is in
> blur
> > > > today just to have something newer than 0.2.3 to work with in the
> > > > meantime.  Is that acceptable before kicking any of these much
> desired
> > > > efforts off?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah the current code base version is on 0.3.0. So we could just
> make
> > > the
> > > > > changes now is this version.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to start moving forward with these issues as soon as
> > > > > possible.  I will give it a day or so for anyone else to chime in
> > but I
> > > > > think we can assume that the renaming issues should move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aaron
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Tim Williams <
> williamstw@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Aaron McCurry <
> amccurry@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > Since Blur was created it has been about big data.  Large
> > indexes,
> > > > > large
> > > > > > > clusters, large ingest rates, fast queries, etc.  Over
the
> years
> > > > > features
> > > > > > > have been created that add more database like properties.
 In
> > > concept
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > was a good thing, but those decisions have made it difficult
to
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > and for Blur to perform well under those database like
> > constraints.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe now is the time for the project to regain focus
on
> what
> > > it
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > well.  I have created some tickets that will begin the
> > > transformation
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > a more focused project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is great, thanks Aaron!  For context, I assume these are
> for a
> > > > > > post-0.2.4?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BLUR-442
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BLUR-443
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BLUR-444
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wahoo!  to all three!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will ask clarifying questions on the others in JIRA...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --tim
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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