Not sure. I remember someone mentioning that schema upgrade should have major version incremented in case of Oozie. But there was one release (3.1 ->3.2 or something before I started working on Oozie) which had schema change just incrementing minor version. If there was an already agreed procedure we should follow that else I am fine either way and ok going with 4.1 (as long it is atleast minor version and not patch version that we are changing) considering every other hadoop project still have major version as 0 and only keep updating minor version. For eg: hive 0.12 -> 0.13 is a major release with schema changes. If we keep incrementing major version very often it feels slightly weird when comparing to other hadoop projects which are still in 0.x :).
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Robert Kanter <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree; we'd also have to likely make two versions of each patch going > forward for 4.x and 5.x/trunk otherwise. > But are we "allowed" to make Oozie 4.0.x --> 4.1.0 require a database > upgrade? > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Rohini Palaniswamy < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > It might be tough work as the CLOB->BLOB conversion change touches a lot > of > > classes. > > > > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Robert Kanter <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > Should we start thinking about a 4.1.0 release? It's been a while > since > > > 4.0.0 (4.0.1 was to fix some critical things like not being able to > > > compile) and I think we have about 200 additional JIRAs in master. > > > > > > Are there any specific features that we'd want to put in 4.1.0 and wait > > > for? > > > > > > Another thing to keep in mind is that we can't just take everything in > > > master; I forget what exactly, but there's some JIRAs that change the > > > database that we'll have to save for 5.0.0. > > > > > > Does anybody want to volunteer to drive the 4.1.0 release? > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > - Robert > > > > > >
