+1 for 0.20.x, where x >= 100. I agree that the 1.0 moniker would involve more discussion.
Will this be a jumbo patch attached to a Jira and then committed to the branch? Just curious. Cheers, Nige On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > I'm willing to discuss any and all options, for a very short period. > > Technically you have a reasonable point, Doug has suggested this in the past > too. If everyone agrees, fine; if not, I'm do not want hung up on a release > number. I just *do not* want a controversy. > > As I mentioned, I'm looking to finish this up in a couple of weeks; so, I > could do without a long discussion on the on the critical path. > > I'm happy to go with a reasonable compromise, if not, hadoop-0.20.100 is what > I'm priming for. > > Heck, if Stack wants to call the append release (not sure how far ahead he > is) as hadoop-0.20.100, I'm willing to call this hadoop-0.20.200. > > All I care about is having a distinct release number from 0.20.2 (our last > stable release). Again, I just want to get a release into the hands of our > users. Please, let's resolve this quickly. Please. > > Arun > > On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > >> >> On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> >>> I'm open to suggestions - how about something like 20.100 to show >>> that it's a big jump? Anything else? >> >> >> Although I'm not wild about any of the potential release names, this >> patch set is neither a subset or superset of the 0.21 or 0.22 >> branches. Given that, I think that a new major release number makes >> the most sense. It is also relatively likely that additional minor >> releases will be made off of this branch while 0.22 is stabilizing. >> We've talked about declaring 0.20 a 1.0 for a long time and this feels >> like backing into the decision, but technically, I believe it to be >> the right name for such a release. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -- Owen >
