I'm sorry for breaking into your discussion as an outsider, but I'm very curious about the security features you are planning to roll out in March. Where can I find information about this?
Best regards, Evert Lammerts > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Booth [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: maandag 22 februari 2010 5:55 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Release plans > > Well, since someone has to get the ball rolling as far as release > masters, I'll nominate Stack and/or someone hbase related for 0.21 > with the primary goal of being "soon"? They get a big win from append > and others will gain from the expanded mapreduce lib, better > schedulers, etc. There are a lot of new features and some major > changes (project split) already in the 0.21 branch, so IMO it's worth > considering a release with minimal backports, rather than make binding > decisions about 0.22 before 0.21 is even in the wild. > > -Jay > > PS sorry Stack > > On Feb 20, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Eli Collins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Can we make a decision on basing 21 on the current branch and if > it's > >> decided that 22 can't remove stuff that was in 20 we'll go back and > >> do > >> the necessary additions on 21 and trunk? Suspect that decision will > >> take a lot more back and forth, but needs to conclude before 21 is > >> released. > >> > > > > Lets. > > > > Regards 0.21/current-branch release, as has been suggested above, > > first we need to figure the release master. No release master, no > > release. If we have a release master, then I suggest we vote on > > current branch being released as 0.21 as soon as the blockers are > > cleared. > > > > I don't think we need muddy the above vote with whether or not 0.21 > > maintains API combatibility with 0.20. IMO, it must (because Y! want > > to have the 0.20 API in place when January 2011 rolls around). This > > makes 0.21 a "minor" release -- something we've not done before (For > > the record, I also had a misunderstanding that what we were doing up > > to this was major and patch only). So, part of the release process > > would involve ensuring no removed deprecations, etc. > > > > As DC has been saying, this requirement that releases between now and > > January 2011 not change APIs makes 0.20 retroactively into a "major" > > release. 0.20 is the release where major shifted left in our > > versioning scheme and minor releases came into play. 0.21 and 0.22 > > will be minor releases. Can we just acknowledge this fact, that there > > was a step at version 0.20, update the wiki around versioning -- its > > currently wrong anyways as Elis' points out -- and just move on? > > Going back and calling 0.20 a 1.0 seems more apt to create confusion > > and besides, I'm with Allen that hadoop 1.0 needs wire compatibility > > before the 1.0 can roll around. > > > > Thanks, > > St.Ack > > P.S. +1 on branching as soon as avro and security are in, etc.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
