Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tajo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@tajo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANpXwBCdoydj2rS1KWDOUAt56x30A=n9DiEnX11AS5jfsY5Ghw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAM=XDd-zMjmZumQTwVX+nTCuwho6H6OJFm1rUSV1mXJpZjsQpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM5pAEwfGAeaG8RnDBEQHGVvDFGbHNEFdHb_B795TBc-kzBQow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH=F5dkrBP=Gtz0dqRuE1fefruVV9MAnM1eJXwEby2OcDAjNNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEj1Ex7k=d1P6SziU7n-S2z8CXan=+gy1VqfH=nDHA_wjdiMDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACZfFK7SV1nwY6syCNOWhpG9Hm5Dv=GZNBn2xXQDCu0hJD5gFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM=XDd9YmDSr+FhO9eCCXreaA8pdxFBJLDCmobfM2mukbEeaBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACZfFK5Y+iOnwKYY191qFUdeiHRF7mjaZ4BKbU-Y8Hqh=BoZXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANpXwBDMNGqGoh8m6EK7J2wsiLS6wvyMA=yJHR1H3AqF9245oQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM5pAEyk0V3TN_h7EwtT+awjEzVgKpAV=y64TsU2itRBspwmdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM=XDd8vQS58iWOLXj++TswS+vTn7S4-S2e5yXSVEWX8o=yB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANpXwBCdoydj2rS1KWDOUAt56x30A=n9DiEnX11AS5jfsY5Ghw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:06:53 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAH=F5d=eEQURbcsDoMbFhRmtx++=qYKyapxeL-x22UG++oSOjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 0.9.1 release
From: Jinho Kim <jhkim@apache.org>
To: dev@tajo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0d326c920eb050a740b2b

--047d7bf0d326c920eb050a740b2b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 +1 for 0.10.0

-Jinho
Best regards

2014-12-18 2:04 GMT+09:00 Hyoungjun Kim <hjkim@apache.org>:
>
> Hi folks,
> I think that current change is major because many interfaces(TajoClient,
> StorageManager) are changed.
>
> +1 for 0.10.0
>
> Best regards,
> Hyoungjun
>
> 2014-12-18 1:53 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>:
> >
> > In my view, we can easily find out two digit version policy (e.g.,
> > 0.10) in famous open source projects like gnome, scala language,
> > ubuntu and so on. Therefore, in my opinion, two digit version is not
> > matter.
> >
> > So, I think that we only need to decide whether is a major or minor
> > change. If it is major, we can use 0.10. Otherwise, we can use 0.9.1.
> > 1.0 would be not candidate.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Hyunsik
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Jaehwa Jung <blrunner@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > +1 for 0.10.0
> > >
> > > I think that users will be familiar with the version because of hive
> and
> > > pig.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Jaehwa
> > > 2014. 12. 15. =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 6:45=EC=97=90 "Hyoungjun Kim" <hjkim=
@apache.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I think that Tajo is not ready for 1.0.0 and 0.10.0 version is
> unusual
> > >> version.
> > >> So, I give +1 for 0.9.1
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >> Hyoungjun
> > >>
> > >> 2014-12-15 18:40 GMT+09:00 Jihoon Son <jihoonson@apache.org>:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hyunsik,
> > >> > I missed my vote.
> > >> > I think that Tajo can provide product-level functions, and there a=
re
> > many
> > >> > real use cases.
> > >> > So, I would like to give +1 for 1.0.0 rather than 0.10.0.
> > >> >
> > >> > Sincerely,
> > >> > Jihoon
> > >> >
> > >> > 2014-12-15 16:41 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Jihoon,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm happy to hear your suggestion. Yes, you are right. The curre=
nt
> > >> > > master branch includes lots of significant changes. Actually, I
> > didn't
> > >> > > expect that when I make 0.9.1 roadmap in Jira. I agree with your
> > >> > > suggestion.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > BTW, we need to hear other guy's thinkings. Could you a make a
> vote
> > >> > > for 0.9.1 vs 0.10?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Best regards,
> > >> > > Hyunsik
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Jihoon Son <jihoonson@apache.or=
g
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > Hi folks,
> > >> > > > I agree on that this is the right time to release a new versio=
n
> of
> > >> > Tajo.
> > >> > > > However, on the version number, I have another idea.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I think that this release involves large changes from various
> > >> > > perspectives,
> > >> > > > such as client API, HBase integration, and so on.
> > >> > > > So, I'd like to suggest to make a major release rather than
> 0.9.1.
> > >> > > > What do you think about it?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > If you agree, we will have two choices of Hadoop-style
> versioning
> > >> > > (0.10.0)
> > >> > > > and traditional versioning(1.0.0).
> > >> > > > I hope to hear any opinions from you.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Sincerely,
> > >> > > > Jihoon
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 2014-12-13 15:14 GMT+09:00 Jihun Kang <ykrips@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Hello hyunsik,
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Any critical issues are not found on 0.9.1, and it would be
> > great if
> > >> > we
> > >> > > >> release next version.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Thanks and best regards.
> > >> > > >> Jihun Kang
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> 2014-12-12 16:51 GMT+09:00 Jinho Kim <jhkim@apache.org>:
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >  +1 I agree
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > -Jinho
> > >> > > >> > Best regards
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > 2014-12-12 10:55 GMT+09:00 Jaehwa Jung <blrunner@apache.org
> >:
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > Hi Hyunsik,
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > +1
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > The time has come for 0.9.1 release.
> > >> > > >> > > For reference, I'll fix an issue which assigned to me thi=
s
> > week.
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > Cheer,
> > >> > > >> > > Jaehwa
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > 2014-12-12 1:00 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.or=
g
> >:
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > Hi folks,
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > There are not many issues scheduled to 0.9.1.
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAJO-940?jql=3Dproject%20%3D%20TAJO=
%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.9.1%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%=
20priority%20DESC
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > It's right time to discuss 0.9.1 release. I think that
> > there
> > >> are
> > >> > > few
> > >> > > >> > > > important issues in 0.9.1. Others look trivial, and we
> can
> > >> > > reschedule
> > >> > > >> > > > them to 0.9.2 release.
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > If you guys agree with my proposal, I'll start the
> release
> > >> work
> > >> > > soon.
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > >> > > > Hyunsik
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

--047d7bf0d326c920eb050a740b2b--