How about 0.9. I think having the ability to role slaves without restarting executors is a good one to have for a 1.0 release.
@vinodkone Sent from my mobile On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:55 PM, Andy Konwinski <[email protected]> wrote: > I buy your argument, and would be happy to see this be our 1.0 release. > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Matei Zaharia <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I would seriously consider 1.0 because "complete" depends on how you >> choose to define it. There will always be new features to add, but Mesos >> already does a bunch of things well, and it's been doing them well for a >> while. There's nothing wrong with having 2.0 a year or two later. >> >> I guess part of the question is how much confidence you want people to >> have in the stability and reliability of the release. I think the software >> is quite stable compared to other projects with similar version numbers. If >> we think there's a major change that needs to happen we could also consider >> 0.9. >> >> Matei >> >> On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Andy Konwinski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'd be happy to see it start with a bit higher number than 0.0.1 as well, >>> to give a more accurate impression of its stability, especially given >> that >>> it is running in production at Twitter. >>> >>> I'd preference to go with something less than 1.0 since often 1.0 is >>> reserved for software that "is 'complete', ... has all major features, >> and >>> is considered reliable enough for general release" ( >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Version_1.0_as_a_milestone >> ) >>> and we still have a number of features we want to add. >>> >>> I like 0.5.0 because it naturally follows where we currently are in the >>> alpha versioning system we've been using (i.e. alpha 0.4), just we drop >> the >>> "alpha" prefix. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Benjamin Hindman < >> [email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not attached to 0.0.1, just the major.minor.patch versioning. By all >>>> means let's start at 0.5.0, or 0.1.0. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Matei Zaharia <[email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why don't we start with 0.5 or even 1.0, given that we already had >>>>> numbered alpha releases and the project has been around for a while? >>>>> >>>>> Matei >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Andy Konwinski <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I chatted with Ben about this, and we propose that we use 0.0.1 for >> the >>>>>> version number for our first apache release, and we adopt versioning >>>>> rules >>>>>> like these http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html (i.e. the version >>>>> scheme >>>>>> is major.minor.patch). >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anybody have thoughts or objections? >>>>>> >>>>>> I've added a new "version" in JIRA called "0.0.1" that (pending this >>>>>> discussion) we can start using to keep track of which Issues are >>>> intended >>>>>> to go into the first release (see >>>>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS/fixforversion/12319875whichis >>>>>> currently pretty boring because I've only assigned one issue to it, as >>>> a >>>>>> test) >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: we used version numbers before entering the incubator to >> identify >>>>> our >>>>>> github tagged alpha "releases", the most recent one being alpha 0.4 >>>> (see >>>>>> https://github.com/mesos/mesos/tags) >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>> >>
