"Not quite stable" does not seem quantifiable. My understanding is that
more common criteria is backward compatibility as it has more serious
impact to the users and is easier to quantify.

Are we sure that changes to any of the components you mention as "in
progress" will have to break backward compatibility? (Addition of new
APIs does not have to be.) 

Finally, I agree with Nigel. This -1 vote is 2 weeks after the
discussions is called and seems a little late to me as well especially
given the fact that we put an effort into building the release.

Olga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santhosh Srinivasan [mailto:s...@yahoo-inc.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 4:04 PM
> To: pig-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Pig 1.0.0 (candidate 0)
> 
> I am doing it now.
> 
> Santhosh 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nigel Daley [mailto:nda...@yahoo-inc.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 3:32 PM
> To: pig-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pig 1.0.0 (candidate 0)
> 
> Not every decision is done by calling for a formal vote.  No 
> one -1'd Olga's proposal.
> 
> nige.
> 
> On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Santhosh Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> > Nigel,
> >
> > It was a discussion without the call for a vote. I am attaching the 
> > email that was sent out back then.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Santhosh
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nigel Daley [mailto:nda...@yahoo-inc.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:41 PM
> > To: pig-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pig 1.0.0 (candidate 0)
> >
> > Santhosh, the version numbering was discussed on this list almost 2 
> > weeks ago.  Why didn't you participate then?
> >
> > Nige
> >
> > On Mar 20, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Santhosh Srinivasan wrote:
> >
> >> -1 on the 1.0.0 release. IMHO, Pig is relatively stable 
> but not quite 
> >> there. I would prefer 0.2.0
> >>
> >> 1. 1.0.0 signifies a highly stable and solid release which will 
> >> require a little bit more work.
> >> 2. Multi-query support will break the way users are using grunt 3. 
> >> There are ongoing efforts for changing load and/or store interfaces
> >>
> >> Santhosh
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Olga Natkovich [mailto:ol...@yahoo-inc.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:21 PM
> >> To: pig-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> >> Subject: [VOTE] Release Pig 1.0.0 (candidate 0)
> >>
> >> Pig Committers,
> >>
> >> I have created a candidate build for Pig 1.0.0.
> >>
> >> This release represents a major rewrite of Pig from the 
> parser down.
> >> It
> >> also introduced type system into Pig and greatly improved system 
> >> performance.
> >>
> >> The rat report is attached. Note that there are many java files 
> >> listed as being without a license header. All these files are 
> >> generated by javacc.
> >>
> >> Keys used to sign the release are available at 
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hadoop/pig/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
> >>
> >> Please download, test, and try it out:
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~olga/pig-1.0.0-candidate-0
> >> <http://people.apache.org/~olga/pig-1.0.0-candidate-0>
> >>
> >> Should we release this? Vote closes on Friday, March 20th.
> >>
> >> Olga
> >
> >
> > From: "Olga Natkovich" <ol...@yahoo-inc.com>
> > Date: March 6, 2009 5:28:36 PM PST
> > To: <pig-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
> > Subject: Next pig release
> > Reply-To: <pig-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
> >
> >
> > Pig Developers and Committers,
> >
> > Now that types branch is merged into trunk and the dust settled, I 
> > propose that it is time for the next release.
> >
> > I propose that we name this release as Pig 1.0.0 since this 
> is a major 
> > rework and a much more stable and performant code with stable 
> > interfaces.
> >
> > Olga
> >
> >
> 
> 

Reply via email to