I think we need to keep those deprecated methods around for awhile, no
reason to anger users.
On 09/07/2012 08:35 AM, Bertrand Dechoux wrote:
Then the question is about when/if the compatibility should be broken.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-139 would be quite easy
without the history of MRUnit and the @Deprecated....
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dave Beech <d...@paraliatech.com> wrote:
I think this depends on what we decide to do about MRUNIT-138. We were
discussing an incompatible change, and if we do decide to do that I think
the version number should increase to 1.0.0 to reflect this (and also the
fact that this is the first version since graduation).
If we later go ahead with the API rewrite (MRUNIT-69), this could form
MRUnit 2.0.0! Would line up nicely with Hadoop's own numbering strategy ;)
On 7 September 2012 07:54, James Kinley <kin...@cloudera.com> wrote:
+1 for the 1.0.0 release. I think it's a good idea to increase the major
version number considering the recent graduation and the included
changes.
On 7 Sep 2012, at 07:29, "Wei, Jianbin" <jianb...@paypal.com> wrote:
My bad, 0.9.0 --> 0.10.0 is also version increase. My eyes are not
used
to have a 2 digits minor version yet. However, I still prefer a
one-digit
minor version as most software do that in practice.
Regards,
-- Jianbin
On Sep 6, 2012, at 10:41 PM, Bertrand Dechoux wrote:
I am not sure to understand "It is not good to backtracking version.".
Does it mean that the version after graduating should show the 'step'?
Is that a common way to do it?
Not taking into account the graduation, I would also favor the "0.10.0"
instead of "1.0.0".
Regards
Bertrand
