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
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to