I mean, +1 on 0.66
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org> wrote: > +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 >>> >> >