On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 2:34 AM, Tom White wrote:
Whereas Arun is proposing
2.0.0-alpha, 2.0.1-alpha, 2.0.2-alpha, 2.1.0-alpha, 2.2.0-beta, 2.3.0
and the casual observer might expect there to be a stable 2.0.1
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Would it better to have 2.0.3-alpha, 2.0.4-beta and then make 2.1 as a
stable release? This way we just have one series (2.0.x) which is not
suitable for general consumption.
That contains the versioning damage to
I think that using -(alpha,beta) tags on the release versions is a really
bad idea. All releases should follow the strictly numeric
(Major.Minor.Patch) pattern that we've used for all of the releases except
the 2.0.x ones.
-- Owen
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote:
I think that using -(alpha,beta) tags on the release versions is a really
bad idea.
Why? Can you please share some reasons?
I actually think alpha and beta and stable/GA are much better way to set
the expectation
of the
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Suresh Srinivas sur...@hortonworks.comwrote:
Why? Can you please share some reasons?
I actually think alpha and beta and stable/GA are much better way to set
the expectation
of the quality of a release. This has been practiced in software release
cycle for a
disclaimer, personal opinions only, I just can't be bothered to subscribe
with @apache.org right now.
On 4 February 2013 14:36, Todd Lipcon t...@cloudera.com wrote:
- Quality/completeness: for example, missing docs, buggy UIs, difficult
setup/install, etc
par for the course. Have you ever
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Tom White t...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
vino...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I still have a list of pending API/protocol cleanup in YARN that need to
be
in before we even attempt supporting compatibility further
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
vino...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I still have a list of pending API/protocol cleanup in YARN that need to be
in before we even attempt supporting compatibility further down the road.
To let others track these it would be useful if they
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Tom White t...@cloudera.com wrote:
Possibly the reason for Stack's consternation is that this is a
Hadoop-specific versioning scheme, rather than a standard one like
Semantic Versioning (http://semver.org/) which is more widely
understood.
If I can offer an
We also need to spell out what's permissible *before* GA as well. The
alpha/beta labels, as I understand them, are not green lights to break
anything as long as it's not API compatibility. The API compatibility
story has been somewhat fuzzy as well, eg MR2 requires users recompile all
their
Stack,
On Jan 30, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Stack wrote:
I find the above opaque and written in a cryptic language that I might grok
if I spent a day or two running over cited issues trying to make some
distillation of the esotericia debated therein. If you want feedback from
other than the
I still have a list of pending API/protocol cleanup in YARN that need to be
in before we even attempt supporting compatibility further down the road.
There's no way we can support wire compatibility with the APIs in the state
that they are in now. So, +1 for a beta sometime in March.
There are
The discussions in HADOOP-9151 were related to wire-compatibility. I think we
all agree that breaking API compatibility is not allowed without deprecating
them first in a prior major release - this is something we have followed since
hadoop-0.1.
I agree we need to spell out what changes we can
Hi Arun, et. al.,
I hope you don't mind a non-contributor butting in here. I'm currently a
Hadoop administrator and former application developer (non-hadoop).
regarding GA release changes, I think Arun has got a lot of good ideas here.
I think it's better to add new features via new flags,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Folks,
There has been some discussions about incompatible changes in the
hadoop-2.x.x-alpha releases on HADOOP-9070, HADOOP-9151, HADOOP-9192 and
few other jiras. Frankly, I'm surprised about some of them since the
Thanks Suresh. Adding back other *-dev lists.
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
+1 for a release with all the changes that are committed. That way it
carries all the important bug fixes.
So, rather than debate more, I had a brief chat with Suresh and Todd. Todd
16 matches
Mail list logo
