On 11/16/2011 10:27 PM, Bruno Mahé wrote: > 1. I would actually be rather in favour of a faster release cycle. But a > quarterly one is probably a good middle ground. This assume we don't get > strict about it. For instance an important update of one of the > component may warrant a new release. > > 2. I only care about monotonically increasing numbers. But codenames are > fun :) > > 3. It depends on how we are planning releases (hence your email). > I only care about a stable release/branch one could trust to maintain a > production grade cluster and another one where we could go forward and > experiment. I was under the impression we would be heading toward a > 0.3.0 based on a next gen hadoop, which would definitely not be > production ready. > So if the consensus is not to update hadoop version for the next bigtop > release, backporting patches to the 0.2.0 branch does not make sense.
Of course I meant to a "next gen" version such as 0.22 or 0.23. > But if we plan to update hadoop to a next gen version, I will definitely > maintain and backport patches to the 0.2.0 branch. But this is > implementation details. >
