On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > CDH3b3 will be ready for Hadoop world, and we'd kind of like to freeze > component versions at this point in the beta cycle. So if 0.90 is out, > that would be great. We can certainly work with what we've got > (20100830 minus ZK assignment) but if a production-worth new master > isn't ready by the end of October or so we'll probably push that out > til CDH4. >
Ok. Its my thought that we'd have a production ready master way before end of October. >> I'm thinking we can afford to take such a position >> because if someone wants durable hbase now, they can run with the >> SU-prod 0.89.x that J-D is about to put up. >> > > This is going to be an official Apache release, right? I guess my > question is: if it's stable and usable for production, why call it a > "development release"? If we're recommending it for all new users over > and above 0.20.6, then it seems like this should be deemed stable (ie > even release number). > I was not talking of recommending the next 0.89.x to all new users over 0.20.6. I thought it plain that running a release in production at SU did not mean the release 'stable and useable' by others. SU has 3 hbase committers aboard to fix and hand-hold the software over rough patches. I was thinking that the next 0.89.x comes w/ the same caveats as previous 0.89.xs, that its a 'developer release' for those willing to put up w/ some rough edges and that its just another step on the way to 0.90.0. >> Putting off new master till 0.92 means it'll be maybe 6 months before >> it appears. During this time we'll be paying a high price keeping up >> two disparate branches -- TRUNK w/ new master and the release branch >> -- shoe-horning patches to fit both. >> > > If you guys are running 20100830 in production, won't you be doing > that anyway? Assumedly we'd treat this 0.90 as "no new features" and > put the new features into 0.91.x leading up to 0.92? > Nope. We'd move to new master release. If it don't work for us, we'd feel a little awkward recommending it to others. >> We also confuse the 0.90 'message' given we've been talking about new >> master at HUGs and here on the lists with a good while now. > > True. The question is whether we prefer to slip time or slip scope. In > my opinion slipping scope is better - it's open source and people > understand that schedules slip. Keeping strong release momentum up > helps adoption and will get people off 0.20.6 which no one really > wants to support anymore. > This is the question. I'm just suggesting that new master MAY not be that far out. I want to do another couple of days work on it and then have us make a call; i.e. vote that we press on to get new master into 0.90 or punt on new master for 0.90. St.Ack
