> Sorry just want to double check what's the plan. Doesn't get point > about skip release until reaching version 1.0. Are we going to just > release some minor fixes and other (significant) patches will be > released after version 1.0? Or ...
No release until reaching version 1.0. If I remember correctly, some people wanted. But I still dislike, because this can cause no-feedback and make participation difficult. > For release procedure, probably we can borrow ideas from continuous > integration where IIRC software is released as earlier as possible, > and release cycle is reduced so that problems can be discovered and > fixed earlier. That seems to be suitable for our scenario. If we follow your idea, what should we do? See http://wiki.apache.org/hama/RoadMap - Do you think we can finish 0.7 within a year? If not, should we separate them into 0.8, 0.9 ..., etc? Is there a way to work in parallel? On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Chia-Hung Lin <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry just want to double check what's the plan. Doesn't get point > about skip release until reaching version 1.0. Are we going to just > release some minor fixes and other (significant) patches will be > released after version 1.0? Or ... > > For release procedure, probably we can borrow ideas from continuous > integration where IIRC software is released as earlier as possible, > and release cycle is reduced so that problems can be discovered and > fixed earlier. That seems to be suitable for our scenario. > > > On 18 August 2013 16:11, Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> wrote: >> I mean, "put all TODO things into 1.0 roadmap, and just skip release >> until reach version 1.0". >> >>> people would compare MRv2, Giraph to Hama; and would think that MRv2, >>> and Giraph would be more better/ stable than Hama because of FT, etc. >> >> Spark also supports full fault-tolerance, and comparison has been >> already started.. Spark shows good performance, giraph shows good >> scalability. Hama has good performance and very flexible interface, >> but we are in gray zone. >> >>> +0 >> >> I'm -0. I think we have to cut periodically. >> >> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Chia-Hung Lin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> +0 >>> >>> Personally I would not go for 1.0 now though the release for 1.0 is >>> ok for me. My reason is people may expect functions such as FT to be >>> ready when it's in the version 1.0. Also it might be inevitably that >>> people would compare MRv2, Giraph to Hama; and would think that MRv2, >>> and Giraph would be more better/ stable than Hama because of FT, etc. >>> regardless of differences between projects. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17 August 2013 16:33, Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I was planning to cut a 0.6.3 release candidate (Hadoop 2.0 compatible >>>> version), however it seems the age of compete for the preoccupancy is >>>> past. So we don't need to hurry up now. Moreover, we are currently >>>> adding a lot of changes, and still need to be improved a lot. We knows >>>> what we should do exactly. >>>> >>>> Do you think we can skip minor release and prepare 1.0 now? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon >>>> @eddieyoon >> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon >> @eddieyoon -- Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @eddieyoon
