I would also VOTE for 0.9.0 -- I find it confusing when projects don't follow an incremental versioning approach...
Cheers, Chris On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:54 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote: > I'm not Brock nor committer, but I would like submit my feedback anyway :-) > > Custom counter checking is still not in. I've submitted last version of my > patch to JIRA (add forgotten file CounterWrapper.java) and I'm waiting for > review. I'll be happy to finish the page into committable form. > > I would personally vote for version 0.9.0, but I don't mind using 1.0.0 > either. > > Jarcec > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:47:58AM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote: >> Brock, >> >> What is your thought on doing a 1.0.0 release? I still would like to >> finish the 4 remaining unresolved JIRA's scheduled for 1.0.0 but >> maybe all new JIRA's could get scheduled for a different version, >> 1.0.1? or 1.1.0? I think we have enough new features/bug fixes: >> mapreduce Combiner, custom counter checking, improved passing of the >> conf, better support for java/other serializations, better error >> messages, deprecated string methods, AssertionError's instead of >> RuntimeException's, separate source, binary distributions. >> >> Should the version really jump up to 1.0.0, maybe 0.9.0 would be >> better. There are no real massive changes, we could continue in the >> 0.10, 0.11, etc versions until the new api is done which would >> become 1.0.0? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
