One issue worth at least considering is that our minor releases usually do not include only new features, but also many bug-fixes -- at least some of which often do not get backported into the next patch-level release. "Feature release" does not convey that information.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:20 PM, vaquar khan <vaquar.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > Though following is commonly use standard for release(http://semver.org/) > ,feature > also looks good as Minor release indicate significant features have been > added > > 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, > 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible > manner, and > 3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes. > > > Apart from verbiage "Minor" with "feature" no other changes in > versioning policy. > > regards, > Vaquar khan > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I also agree with this given the way we develop stuff. We don't really >> want to move to possibly-API-breaking major releases super often, but we do >> have lots of large features that come out all the time, and our current >> name doesn't convey that. >> >> Matei >> >> On Jul 28, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: >> >> Yea definitely. Those are consistent with what is defined here: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Spark+Versioning+Policy >> >> The only change I'm proposing is replacing "minor" with "feature". >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >>> Although 'minor' is the standard term, the important thing is making >>> the nature of the release understood. 'feature release' seems OK to me >>> as an additional description. >>> >>> Is it worth agreeing on or stating a little more about the theory? >>> >>> patch release: backwards/forwards compatible within a minor release, >>> generally fixes only >>> minor/feature release: backwards compatible within a major release, >>> not forward; generally also includes new features >>> major release: not backwards compatible and may remove or change >>> existing features >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> >>> wrote: >>> > tl;dr >>> > >>> > I would like to propose renaming “minor release” to “feature release” >>> in >>> > Apache Spark. >>> > >>> > >>> > details >>> > >>> > Apache Spark’s official versioning policy follows roughly semantic >>> > versioning. Each Spark release is versioned as >>> > [major].[minor].[maintenance]. That is to say, 1.0.0 and 2.0.0 are both >>> > “major releases”, whereas “1.1.0” and “1.3.0” would be minor releases. >>> > >>> > I have gotten a lot of feedback from users that the word “minor” is >>> > confusing and does not accurately describes those releases. When users >>> hear >>> > the word “minor”, they think it is a small update that introduces >>> couple >>> > minor features and some bug fixes. But if you look at the history of >>> Spark >>> > 1.x, here are just a subset of large features added: >>> > >>> > Spark 1.1: sort-based shuffle, JDBC/ODBC server, new stats library, >>> 2-5X >>> > perf improvement for machine learning. >>> > >>> > Spark 1.2: HA for streaming, new network module, Python API for >>> streaming, >>> > ML pipelines, data source API. >>> > >>> > Spark 1.3: DataFrame API, Spark SQL graduate out of alpha, tons of new >>> > algorithms in machine learning. >>> > >>> > Spark 1.4: SparkR, Python 3 support, DAG viz, robust joins in SQL, math >>> > functions, window functions, SQL analytic functions, Python API for >>> > pipelines. >>> > >>> > Spark 1.5: code generation, Project Tungsten >>> > >>> > Spark 1.6: automatic memory management, Dataset API, ML pipeline >>> persistence >>> > >>> > >>> > So while “minor” is an accurate depiction of the releases from an API >>> > compatibiility point of view, we are miscommunicating and doing Spark a >>> > disservice by calling these releases “minor”. I would actually call >>> these >>> > releases “major”, but then it would be a larger deviation from semantic >>> > versioning. I think calling these “feature releases” would be a smaller >>> > change and a more accurate depiction of what they are. >>> > >>> > That said, I’m not attached to the name “feature” and am open to >>> > suggestions, as long as they don’t convey the notion of “minor”. >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Vaquar Khan > +91 830-851-1500 > >
