Hi Csaba! I would be fine with both proposals, with a slight preference to B. My understanding is that you're going to expose a way to define overrides for time zone definitions, so there will be pretty workable workarounds too.
-- Philip On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Csaba Ringhofer <csringho...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Folks! > > We had a discussion with a few people about the versioning of Impala after > 3.0. The motivation was that IMPALA-3307 (which replaces the timezone > implementation in Impala, and contains some breaking changes) missed 3.0 > and we are not sure about the version in which it can be released - is it > 3.1 or 4.0? > > A. jumping to 4.0 would communicate clearly that the release contains > braking changes - if the plan for Impala is to follow semantic versioning, > than this is the way to go > > B. releasing it in 3.1 would communicate that the change is too small for a > major version bump, and major versions are kept for BIG changes in Impala > > My personal preference is for B - if a breaking change is relatively small > and workarounds are possible + the community agrees, then it should be > possible to release it in minor a version, while major versions could be > kept for changes where switching Impala version needs large effort on the > user's side (for example 2->3 jump needs new Java and Hadoop major > version), or when a huge improvement is added to Impala which deserves > extra attention. This is more of an aesthetic than a rational choice on my > side, so I am totally ok with semantic versioning too, if the community > prefers it. >
