+1 for the approach. Min
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Jihoon Son <[email protected]> wrote: > +1! > > > 2014-02-20 9:50 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]>: > > > There remain few issues for 0.8. After 0.8, we will refactor resource > > manager, scheduler, and the design of worker part for multi-tenancy > > support. For this, we need to separate the branches right now. If there > are > > no objection, I'll create a branch for 0.8. The remain issues for 0.8 > will > > be merged to both 0.8 and master branches. > > > > - hyunsik > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Henry, > > > > > > I appreciate for correcting my wrong statements. You are right. We will > > > release 0.8 three months after 0.2 release. > > > > > > I don't think that we want to release 0.8 before potential graduation, > > and > > > it may be hard to do so even if we want. This is because there still > > remain > > > some critical issues that we cannot postpone anymore. > > > > > > The main objective of my claim aforementioned is to make two branches > for > > > development after 0.8 release. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Hyunsik > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Hyunsik, I think you meant will release 0.8 three months after 0.2 > > >> release? > > >> > > >> Do we want to release 0.8 quickly before potential graduation VOTE? > > >> If we do then maybe we could remove the more issues, such as the > > >> sub-tasks and improvement, and keep only blocking issues. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Henry > > >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > I'm rescheduling non-critical issues scheduled in 0.8 to next > release. > > >> > > > >> > I'm considering the next release versions. So far, we have had long > > term > > >> > for each release. We released 0.2 seven months after incubation. We > > also > > >> > released 0.8 three months after 0.2 release. It is because Tajo has > > been > > >> > heavy under development status. > > >> > > > >> > Tajo 0.8 seems a product ready level. I'm expecting that there would > > be > > >> > additional use cases on products. In order to support them, we need > to > > >> > release Tajo more frequently with hotfixs. > > >> > > > >> > So, I would like to propose the develpment based on two branches, > > which > > >> one > > >> > is 0.8.x branch and 1.0 branch (master branch in git). 0.8.x branch > > >> will be > > >> > frequently released with hotfixes and new lightwight features. 1.0 > > >> branch will > > >> > be developed for a complete system. It will embrace even radical > > changes > > >> > and new features. The next major release, probably 0.9, would be > > >> branched > > >> > from 1.0 branch. > > >> > > > >> > If you have any idea, feel free to suggest. > > >> > > > >> > - hyunsik > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM, JaeHwa Jung <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Sorry guys, I missed prerequisite. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> 2014/1/20 JaeHwa Jung <[email protected]> > > >> >> > > >> >> > +1 for your idea. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I also think that this is right time for 0.8 release. > > >> >> > As you mentioned, too time-consuming jobs need to fix for next > > >> release. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > And we need to check 0.8 document again because there are not > some > > >> basic > > >> >> > features for users. For example, there is nothing about hadoop > > >> version. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > 2014/1/18 Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> Hi folks, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> It seems to be right time to think about the 0.8-incubating > > release. > > >> >> >> Please take a look at the 0.8 roadmap and the current resolved > > >> issues. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> - 0.8 Roadmap > > >> >> >> https://wiki.apache.org/tajo/Roadmap > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> - 0.8 unresolved issues > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20TAJO%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.8-incubating%22%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Most of scheduled feature are all implemented. Some issues, > > >> push-based > > >> >> >> transmission and improvement of intermediate data, are > unresolved > > so > > >> >> >> far. However, in my point of view, they are not critical in this > > >> time. > > >> >> >> I think they can be scheduled to next release. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Although there are still bugs listed in 0.8 unresolved issues, > we > > >> will > > >> >> >> resolve most of them soon if we concentrate on bug fix. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> So, if you agree, I would like to suggest to prepare 0.8 > release. > > I > > >> >> >> just listed some issues which must be resolved for 0.8 release > at > > >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAJO-512. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I will wait your idea and suggestion. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Thanks, > > >> >> >> Hyunsik > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > -- > > >> >> > Thanks, > > >> >> > Jaehwa Jung > > >> >> > Bigdata Platform Team > > >> >> > Gruter > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> -- > > >> >> Thanks, > > >> >> Jaehwa Jung > > >> >> Bigdata Platform Team > > >> >> Gruter > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jihoon Son > > Database & Information Systems Group, > Prof. Yon Dohn Chung Lab. > Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, > Korea University > 1, 5-ga, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, > Seoul, 136-713, Republic of Korea > > Tel : +82-2-3290-3580 > E-mail : [email protected] > -- My research interests are distributed systems, parallel computing and bytecode based virtual machine. My profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/coderplay My blog: http://coderplay.javaeye.com
