So what is the plan with 20.3 that Owen volunteered to RM? Should we do that, or just integrate the security code with that and call it 20.x?
--- Ian Holsman - 703 879-3128 I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free -- Michelangelo On 12/01/2011, at 6:02 PM, Eli Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on 0.20.x (where x is a J > 3) > > Nigel - could we make all the patches in this branch that have not > been committed up stream (that need to be) blockers for 22? This way > 22 is not a regression against 0.20.x. > > Thanks, > Eli > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Nigel Daley <[email protected]> wrote: >> +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 >>> >> >>
