If we do a 1.0.0 release there is no problem with us later releasing 14.1 or a 14.2. I think everyone would understand that the 14.2 being released after 1.0.0 would likely have back ported features. Releasing a 15.0 after 1.0 would not make as much sense as we probably do not want two active branches.
What I am most concerned about is we have been doing hive releases against snapshots of Apache|Other projects. Releases should not depend on snapshots. If the other project is not mature enough to have a release we should probably not be depending on it. I understand why this happens but I think it is a bit hokie. Would anyone be happy if hive depended on "git-edwardcapriolo-coolutils-0.0.0-snapshot-5". So if we are having the "serious 1.0 talk" we should avoid things like this. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Xuefu Zhang <xzh...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Thejas/Alan, > > From all the argument, I think there was an assumption that the proposed > 1.0 release will be imminent and 0.15 will happen far after that. Based on > that assumption, 0.15 will become 1.1, which is greater in scope than 1.0. > However, this assumption may not be true. The confusion will be significant > if 0.15 is released early as 0.15 before 0.14.1 is released as 1.0. > > Another concern is that, the proposed release of 1.0 is a subset of of > Hive's functionality, and for major releases users are expecting major > improvement in functionality as well as stability. Mutating from 0.14.1 > release seems falling short in that expectation. > > Having said that, I'd think it makes more sense to release 0.15 as 0.15, > and later we release 1.0 as the major release that supersedes any previous > releases. That will fulfill the expectations of a major release. > > Thanks, > Xuefu > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Alan Gates <ga...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > > I had one clarifying question for Brock and Xuefu. Was your proposal to > > still call the branch from trunk you are planning in a few days 0.15 (and > > hence release it as 0.15) and have 1.0 be a later release? Or did you > want > > to call what is now 0.15 1.0? If you wanted 1.0 to be post 0.15, are you > > ok with stipulating that the next release from trunk after 0.15 (what > would > > have been 0.16) is 1.0? > > > > Alan. > > > > Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> > > January 22, 2015 at 12:04 > > Brock, Xuefu, > > > > We seem to have trouble reaching to a consensus here. (Please see my > > arguments why I don't see this causing confusions, and let me know if > > it changes your opinion). > > How should we move forward ? Do you think we need to go through a > > formal vote regarding the release plan as per hive by-laws ? > > > > > > Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> > > January 22, 2015 at 10:38 > > I don't see any reasons for confusion. > > From a user perspective, 1.0 is going to have a super set of changes of > > 0.14. > > 1.1 (based on planned 0.15 release) will have a super set of changes in > > 1.0 . > > > > > > Xuefu Zhang <xzh...@cloudera.com> > > January 21, 2015 at 22:47 > > I strongly believe that the concept of 1.0 out of a branch as proposed is > > creating the greatest confusion in the community. If for any reason that > > 1.0 cannot be cut from the trunk, that means that we are not ready and so > > shall wait until so before considering such a release. Thus, I'd -1 on > this > > proposal. > > > > Thanks, > > Xuefu > > > > > > Gopal V <gop...@apache.org> > > January 21, 2015 at 22:29 > > On 1/21/15, 7:09 PM, Brock Noland wrote: > > > > Too be clear I strongly feel creating 1.0 from 0.14 will be confusing. In > > fact it's already crrated confusion amongst folks on this list. > > Furthermore > > 1.0 should be created from trunk and be a superset of previous releases. > > > > > > I don't think there is any confusion over that - 1.0 is a long-term > > maintenance which is going to be a super-set of all *critical fixes* made > > from here on (emphasis). > > > > In fact, a long-term support release should be released off an actively > > updated maintenance branch, which has been baked-in and never from the > > trunk. > > > > Those who have followed the earlier mails would realize that the most > > important "feature" about this branch is to stick to only long term > > maintenance - which in effect is adopting HBase's successful idea. > > > > That is just plain solid engineering. > > > > Anyway, it would be in the best interests of the larger community, to > find > > out who else finds that approach confusing. > > > > Brock, I'm not sure whether you are confused or whether you think other > > people will be confused (and if so, why?). > > > > Cheers, > > Gopal > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Vikram Dixit K <vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > <vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > @Brock, > > > > I created this branch from 0.14. I created this branch based on the email > > thread discussing 1.0, > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/8er9YGX8g2 > > > > where you had said you agreed with the suggestion from Enis from HBase > who > > said that we should base 1.0 on a stable version rather than making it a > > feature release. > > > > @Lefty, > > > > You are right in that branch 0.14 has been made 1.0. You are also right > > that 0.15 would be 1.1.0 and we should capture that. > > > > Regards > > Vikram. > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> > > <the...@hortonworks.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Lefty, > > Yes, you are right. Anything that is not fixed in 0.14 and is fixed in > > 1.0 would have 1.0 as the fixed version. > > Yes, 0.15.0 would then become 1.1.0 . > > > > Yes, it is a good idea to document this translation somewhere. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com > > > > <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > So my initial impression was correct -- instead of calling it release > > > 0.14.1, we're calling it 1.0.0. Or am I hopelessly confused? > > > > > > Will 0.15.0 be 1.1.0? (If so, I'll need to edit a dozen wikidocs.) > > > > > > Will release numbers get changed in JIRA issues? Presumably that's not > > > possible in old comments, so we should document the equivalences > > > somewhere. A JIRA issue for that with a well-phrased summary could help > > > future searchers. > > > > > > > > > -- Lefty > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Eugene Koifman < > > ekoif...@hortonworks.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> could we include HIVE-9390 & HIVE-9404? This has been committed to > > trunk. > > >> They add useful retry logic to support insert/update/delete > > functionality. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vikram Dixit K < > > > > vikram.di...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi Folks, > > >> > > > >> > I have created branch 1.0 as discussed earlier. All the jiras that > > have > > >> > 0.14 as the fix version should be committed to 1.0 branch instead. > > > > The > > > > >> list > > >> > of jiras that are being tracked for 1.0 are as follows: > > >> > > > >> > HIVE-8485 > > >> > HIVE-9053 > > >> > HIVE-8996. > > >> > > > >> > Please let me know if you want to include more jiras here. I am > > working > > >> on > > >> > generating javadocs for this. I hope to have an RC out once these > > jiras > > >> get > > >> > in. > > >> > > > >> > Regards > > >> > Vikram. > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Vaibhav Gumashta < > > >> > vgumas...@hortonworks.com > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Vikram, > > >> > > > > >> > > I'd like to get this in: HIVE-8890 > > >> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-8890> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-8890> [HiveServer2 > > dynamic > > >> > > service discovery: use persistent ephemeral nodes curator recipe]. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > --Vaibhav > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Alan Gates < > ga...@hortonworks.com > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > I'd really like to get HIVE-8966 in there, since it breaks > > streaming > > >> > > > ingest. The patch is ready to go, it's just waiting on a > > > > review, > > > > >> which > > >> > > > Owen has promised to do soon. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Alan. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Vikram Dixit K <vikram.di...@gmail.com> <vikram.di...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > January 19, 2015 at 18:53 > > >> > > > Hi All, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I am going to be creating the branch 1.0 as mentioned earlier, > > >> > tomorrow. > > >> > > I > > >> > > > have the following list of jiras that I want to get committed > > > > to > > > > the > > >> > > branch > > >> > > > before creating an RC. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > HIVE-9112 > > >> > > > HIVE-6997 : Delete hive server 1 > > >> > > > HIVE-8485 > > >> > > > HIVE-9053 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Please let me know if you would like me to include any other > > jiras. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Vikram. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Vikram Dixit K < > > >> > vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > <vikram.di...@gmail.com> <vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> <the...@hortonworks.com> > > >> > > > January 1, 2015 at 10:23 > > >> > > > Yes, 1.0 is a good opportunity to remove some of the deprecated > > >> > > > components. The change to remove HiveServer1 is already there > > > > in > > > > >> trunk > > >> > > > , we should include that. > > >> > > > We can also use 1.0 release to clarify the public vs private > > status > > >> of > > >> > > > some of the APIs. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the reminder about the documentation status of > > > > 1.0. I > > > > will > > >> > > > look at some of them. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Lefty Leverenz > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > December 31, 2014 at 0:12 > > >> > > > Oh, now I get it. The 1.0.0 *branch* of Hive. Okay. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- Lefty > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Lefty Leverenz < > > >> > > leftylever...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > <leftylever...@gmail.com> <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > <leftylever...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > December 30, 2014 at 23:43 > > >> > > > I thought x.x.# releases were just for fixups, x.#.x could > > > > include > > > > >> new > > >> > > > features, and #.x.x were major releases that might have some > > >> > > > backward-incompatible changes. But I guess we haven't agreed > > > > on > > > > that. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > As for documentation, we still have 84 jiras with TODOC14 > > > > labels > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > . > > >> > > > Not to mention 25 TODOC13 labels > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > , > > >> > > > eleven TODOC12 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC12 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC12 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > , > > >> > > > seven TODOC11 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC11 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC11 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > , > > >> > > > and seven TODOC10 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC10 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC10 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > . > > >> > > > > > >> > > > That's 134 doc tasks to finish for a Hive 1.0.0 release -- > > preferably > > >> > by > > >> > > > the release date, not after. Because expectations are higher > > > > for > > > > >> 1.0.0 > > >> > > > releases. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- Lefty > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Vikram Dixit K < > > >> > vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > <vikram.di...@gmail.com> <vikram.di...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Vikram Dixit K <vikram.di...@gmail.com> <vikram.di...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > December 30, 2014 at 17:23 > > >> > > > Hi Folks, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Given that there have been a number of fixes that have gone > > > > into > > > > >> branch > > >> > > > 0.14 in the past 8 weeks, I would like to make a release > > > > of > > 0.14.1 > > > > >> > soon. > > >> > > I > > >> > > > would like to fix some of the release issues as well this > > > > time > > > > >> around. > > >> > I > > >> > > am > > >> > > > thinking of some time around 15th January for getting a RC > > > > out. > > > > >> Please > > >> > > let > > >> > > > me know if you have any concerns. Also, from a previous thread, > > > > I > > > > >> would > > >> > > > like to make this release the 1.0 branch of hive. The process > > > > for > > > > >> > getting > > >> > > > jiras into this release is going to be the same as the previous > > one > > >> > viz.: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. Mark the jira with fix version 0.14.1 and update the status > > > > to > > > > >> > > > blocker/critical. > > >> > > > 2. If a committer +1s the patch for 0.14.1, it is good to > > > > go in. > > > > >> Please > > >> > > > mention me in the jira in case you are not sure if the jira > > > > should > > > > >> make > > >> > > it > > >> > > > for 0.14.1. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Vikram. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > >> > > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual > > > > or > > > > >> > entity > > >> > > > to which it is addressed and may contain information that > > > > is > > > > >> > > confidential, > > >> > > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. > > > > If > > the > > > > >> > reader > > >> > > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > > >> notified > > >> > > that > > >> > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure > > > > or > > > > >> > > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > > If you > > > > have > > >> > > > received this communication in error, please contact the > > > > sender > > > > >> > > immediately > > >> > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > >> > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual > > > > or > > > > >> entity > > >> > to > > >> > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is > > confidential, > > >> > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If > > > > the > > > > >> reader > > >> > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > > notified > > >> > that > > >> > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure > > > > or > > > > >> > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you > > > > have > > > > >> > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > >> > immediately > > >> > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Nothing better than when appreciated for hard work. > > >> > -Mark > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Eugene > > >> > > >> -- > > >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or > > entity to > > >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is > > > > confidential, > > > > >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the > > reader > > >> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > that > > >> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > >> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > >> received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > immediately > > >> and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >> > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > > > > to > > > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > > > that > > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > > > immediately > > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Nothing better than when appreciated for hard work. > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > > to which it is addressed and may contain information that is > confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >
