You’re right, it could be a non-1.0 release. Or we could declare that the APIs Drill wants to change are not stable. I’d prefer the latter.
Julian On Jan 14, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > What can't this next release be a non-1.0 release? > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm fine with that as long we decide that API stability between 1.0 and 1.1 >> aren't critical. It is important for both Drill and Hive to be on top of >> Calcite proper. If we decide that we will be fairly static beyond 1.0, we >> need to make sure the Drill 1.0's API's needs are incorporated before >> pushing or we'll get into a situation where there will be a divergent fork >> of Calcite again, which will ultimately hurt the community. >> >> If this is just to get a release, let's just release 0.9.5 or similar. >> There is no reason to release 1.0 and guarantee API stability just because >> Hive needs a release. >> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> We are behind on our commitment to release “monthly”. Our last release >> was >>> over 2 months ago. Hive has incorporated our API changes (in >>> 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT) in their trunk and cannot release on a snapshot release. >>> So, yes, we need to release earlier than mid-February. >>> >>> If Jinfeng’s changes don’t make the cut for 1.0 there will be a 1.1 >>> shortly afterwards. >>> >>> Julian >>> >>> >>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jinfeng is in the process of getting Drill back onto the master of >>>> Calcite. He is working on this actively right now. (We'd fallen a bit >>>> behind.) I imagine there would be a smattering of fixes that will come >>> out >>>> of this work and I'd love to get these incorporated. I'd love to have >> a >>>> couple more weeks to get those in and start a 1.0 vote early February. >>>> Anything in particular that would make targeting a few weeks later an >>>> issue? >>>> >>>> thx, >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I do consider SQL changes to be API changes. These particular changes >>> are >>>>> backward compatible (no previous valid SQL would be broken by these >>>>> changes) and therefore they could be introduced in a point release >> (say >>>>> 1.1). >>>>> >>>>> Julian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 1:49 PM, James Taylor <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Would CALCITE-505 or CALCITE-495 be considered API changes? These >>>>> would be good to get in sooner rather than later IMO. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think we are close to being able to release Calcite 1.0. >>>>> >>>>> Release 1.0 is always a "big deal”, but I don’t want to make a huge >> deal >>>>> out of it. In the semantic versioning methodology [ >> http://semver.org/ >>> ], >>>>> there is an understanding that after 1.0, APIs only change in >>> significant >>>>> ways in major versions. Accordingly, we aimed to complete the >>>>> re-organization of code into the org.apache.calcite namespace before >>> 1.0. >>>>> >>>>> But let’s not wait until the product is “done” before we release 1.0. >> (A >>>>> software project is never “done”.) I’d like to keep up our >>>>> about-once-a-month release tempo. >>>>> >>>>> I have served as Release Manager [ >>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReleaseManager ] on >>>>> previous >>>>> releases, but one of the things we need to achieve before we graduate >>> from >>>>> the Incubator is to spread the tasks among committers. Would someone >>> else >>>>> like to volunteer to be release manager? >>>>> >>>>> What issues must be fixed before 1.0? I only have two: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-466 >>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-558 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any others? >>>>> >>>>> What timeline for the release? How about if we create the first >> release >>>>> candidate a week from today Tue 1/20? (It may take a few release >>>>> candidates, then a 3 day vote, then a 3 day IPMC vote.) >>>>> >>>>> Please chime in on the release timescale, critical issues, and offers >> to >>>>> help. >>>>> >>>>> Julian >>>>> >>> >>> >>
