+1 ... it'll really expand the number of people using Drill, so we get good
feedback on what's working and what's not. Glad that Drill is already
sufficiently rich to allow complex use-cases, so the feedback should be
first-class.

thanks & regards,
Srivas.

*---*
*M.C. Srivas, CTO & Co-founder, *MapR Technologies, Inc.
<http://www.mapr.com>


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hey Everybody,
>
> It has been too long since our last release.  So much good stuff has been
> done in master but we have no release with which people can experiment.  We
> need to do a better job of releasing early and often.  I think the monthly
> cycle that Optiq and Spark uses works very well and propose we move to that
> model.
>
> To kick this off, I propose we do a release next week that is our first
> development point release that supports distributed execution.  There are
> probably a dozen outstanding patches that would be good to get into this
> release and I'd like to try to target those but ultimately time-bound the
> release.
>
> With releasing comes a discussion of version numbers.  While we initially
> started out with a milestone versioning scheme, the feedback I've received
> is that it doesn't fit what people expect.  As such, I propose moving to a
> more traditional point release scheme.
>
> I think that we're probably a month or so away from a good beta release
> which I think would fairly be considered a 0.5 release.  As such, I propose
> that we release 0.4 next week and then increment each month, targeting a
> 1.0 release towards the end of the year.
>
> In summary, my release proposal is to target something similar to:
> July: 0.4 (dev preview)
> August: 0.5 (beta)
> September: 0.6
> Oct: 0.7
> ...
> EOY: 1.0 (ga)
>
> I think this more frequent release will help users to understand what Drill
> is all about and let them start to experiment with their workloads.  This
> should also drive additional community engagement and new contributions
> which is what this is all about.
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>

Reply via email to