Agreed, there is no tie-up with hadoop releases, but calling the 0.20.5 as a 1.0 release might be too premature!
thanks, dhruba On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com> wrote: > Agreed that 0.20.5 itself should not be 1.0. Don't feel that strongly > about successor of 0.20.5 vs current trunk becoming a 1.0 (hopefully Q3), > but don't necessarily think we should commit ourselves to the timing of any > hadoop releases :) > > Replication and zookeeper goodness would be nice for 1.0 as well. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dhruba Borthakur [mailto:dhr...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 12:37 AM > > To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org > > Subject: Re: HBase move to Apache Top Level Project > > > > I think it is too early to cal the next impending 0.20.5 release to be > > the > > 1.0 release. > > > > hadoop is going to ship 0.22 by Q3 2010, which might be Hadoop 1.0 (?). > > It > > might make sense to name the Hbase release aligned with that Hadoop > > 0.22 to > > be HBase 1.0. > > > > -dhruba > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > When do we want to declare a 1.0? When we are running on HDFS-265? > > > When we run on a hdfs that doesnt lose data? > > > > > > If the latter, then 0.20.5 is a contender. There is a lot of > > > expectation out of a 1.0. > > > > > > Other options are going to an alternate scheme, like "version 20" > > (eg: > > > oracle 9) but that seems not enough of a distance. > > > > > > I would probably go with something like calling 0.20.5 -> 0.9 > > > > > > then once we are baked, 1.0 later (trunk or branch, not sure, > > probably > > > trunk) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Jonathan Gray > > <jg...@facebook.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > Now might also be the time to think about breaking from hadoop > > > numbering > > > >> (I think this idea has been floating around since the first > > version we > > > >> synced). > > > >> > > > > >> > We've already agreed to break client compatibility for 0.20.5 > > and it's > > > >> more than a minor revision. And I'm sure we'll have another > > release > > > between > > > >> 0.20.5 and 0.21. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> So, the new version could be 0.21 but thats not 'breaking from > > hadoop > > > >> numbering' and it can't be 1.0.0 .... yet. What should it be? > > 0.99.0 > > > >> is kinda dumb. 0.3.0? (We went as far as 0.2.0 on old numbering > > > >> system). 0.3.0 will be less than 0.21.0 so will mess w/ packaging > > > >> systems. 0.30.0? > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Both deb and RPM have the concept of a version epoch, so we can > > make > > > 0.3.0 > > > > > 0.20 if we like. > > > > > > > > However, it might be confusing for users nonetheless. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > It's also clear that this is going to be by far our most solid > > release > > > to > > > >> date and so might be worthy of new shiny versioning/packaging as a > > TLP. > > > >> Website/docs/wiki refresher to boot. > > > >> > > > > >> > Changing the package names is way more invasive to client code > > but I'm > > > >> always +1 on making stuff shorter. > > > >> > > > >> Might have to keep around the old stuff deprecated. > > > >> > > > >> St.Ack > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Anyways, I'm not doing much production cluster maintenance these > > days > > > so > > > >> these changes would impact me way less than others. Will welcome > > > pushback > > > >> if you guys don't want to deal with this. > > > >> > > > > >> > JG > > > >> > > > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> >> From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com] > > > >> >> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:20 PM > > > >> >> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org > > > >> >> Subject: Re: HBase move to Apache Top Level Project > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I am somewhat interested in this :-) > > > >> >> > > > >> >> But it can make life difficult for our users... thoughts > > people? > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Karthik K <oss....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> >> > This is great news. Congrats HBase team. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > (Does this mean, the packages would be refactored as > > o.a.hbase.* in > > > >> >> the > > > >> >> > trunk ? ). > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > -- > > > >> >> > Karthik. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Cosmin Lehene > > <cleh...@adobe.com > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> This is great news! > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> On Apr 22, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Stack wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > The board yesterday passed a resolution making HBase a > > TLP. > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > I filed an infrastructure issue to start the move: > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2641 > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > The primary disruption to developers will be when the > > subversion > > > >> >> >> > repository is renamed. We'll send out a note before we do > > this, > > > >> >> then > > > >> >> >> > developers can use 'svn switch' to update their repos > > (There is > > > no > > > >> >> >> > apache git repo that I know of... I asked just in case) > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> We already use the apache git.apache.org mirror for HBase. > > I've > > > also > > > >> >> seen > > > >> >> >> the GitHub mirror http://github.com/apache/hbase and thought > > > there > > > >> >> might > > > >> >> >> be some plans for migration. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > One other issue is the wiki. I don't think it's easy to > > rename > > > a > > > >> >> >> > subtree from a Moin Moin wiki to a new wiki. Fortunately > > we > > > don't > > > >> >> >> > have many wiki pages and could cut and paste them > > manually. > > > >> >> >> > Alternately, we could switch to using confluence for our > > wiki. > > > >> >> >> > Thoughts? > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> Confluence has a good integration with Jira (being both > > developed > > > by > > > >> >> >> Atlassian). It's functionally advanced and looks better. So > > +1 for > > > >> >> that as > > > >> >> >> well. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Cosmin > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > St.Ack > > > >> >> >> > (Above shamelessly a copy of Doug's mail to the Avro list) > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Todd Lipcon > > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba > -- Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
