+1
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > Lets not call it 0.21. I wanted to call it 0.66.0 so we could do a > logo for it: http://people.apache.org/~stack/66.jpg > > I'm good w/ 0.90.0 or 0.30.0. > > St.Ack > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> Hi HBasers, >> >> Time for the second proposal of the day! >> >> I'd like to start a discussion around the version number of the upcoming >> "durable HBase" release. The release I'm referring to is the one currently >> being worked towards on trunk, and the one that FB and Cloudera plan to work >> with for production clusters round about Q3 2010. >> >> The current name for this release is 0.21. I think this is going to cause >> user confusion due to the previous "lockstep versioning" that HBase has had >> with regard to Hadoop. I think many people will assume they need to use >> Hadoop 0.21 (being billed as an unstable release at least for 0.21.0) and >> generally not quite understand why our version number is the same if we have >> no tie to the Hadoop version. So, I am generally -1 on calling this next >> HBase release 0.21.0. >> >> The other factor is that I think we all see this upcoming release as a major >> step up from 0.20. Namely, it provides true durability of every write, much >> improved cluster stability, a new build system, replication, and countless >> other improvements that everyone's been cranking on. I'm sure given the >> number of people now working on the project, we'll see even a few more great >> improvements pop up before we're ready to freeze. >> >> Some have suggested we jump all the way to HBase 1.0. I think this is a bit >> ambitious, as 1.0 implies a level of API stability we're not quite ready to >> commit to. Perhaps we can go there some time next year, but don't want to >> open that can of worms yet :) >> >> So, beyond not liking either 0.21 or 1.0, I don't have a strong opinion. >> Some have suggested 0.90, as it is lexically much bigger than 0.20 but >> clearly not 1.0 yet. Others have suggested 0.30, to give us room to go to >> 0.40, 0.50, etc before a 1.0. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Todd >> >> -- >> Todd Lipcon >> Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >
