I agree that there will probably need to be several 0.9.x releases as
the new optimization and parser work mature. As a consequence of this
it may be longer between 0.9 and Pig.next then there has been between
the last few releases. That only delays the question of what we call
Pig.next, it does not answer it.
To me, declaring 1.0 would mean the following things:
1) Pig is ready for production use, at least by the brave.
2) It is still rough around the edges, you do not get a smooth product
until 2.0 or later.
3) We will not make non-backward compatible changes to interfaces we
have declared stable.
Pig is in use in production in multiple places, I do not think anyone
will argue that it is not rough around the edges, and because we have
users who run tens of thousands of Pig jobs daily non-backward
compatible changes are impossible anyway.
As for waiting for Hadoop to go 1.0, that is like waiting for Congress
to fix social security. I am sure they will get there, but I may be
retired first. In all seriousness, the Hadoop project has not been
moving with speed or agility over the last few years, and I do not
think waiting for them to do something is a good idea. Nor do I see
it as necessary. Before we could go 1.0 would we insist that every
jar we import is >= 1.0? Yes we are bound more tightly to Hadoop then
we are to log4j. But we are still our own project. 1.0 is a claim we
are making about ourselves, not about the platform we run on. We
should choose our release numbering in a way that sends a clear
message to our users, and let those same users evaluate Hadoop
separately.
Also the argument that we should not go 1.0 because we are changing a
lot of things is bogus. We are always changing a lot of things. If
1.0 means we will not make any major changes, then we will not get
there until we go into some kinds of maintenance mode where we deem
the majority of the work to have been done. I hope I have retired
before we reach that state.
My perspective on what 1.0 means obviously comes from a developer
inside the project. I would be interested in hearing from users and
anyone with a more marketing oriented perspective on what message 1.0
would send to (potential) pig users.
Alan.
On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy wrote:
I am worried that the new optimization plan work has not had a
chance to
settle in, and we are releasing a brand new parser for the language
in 0.9.
Those are pretty significant changes, if the idea behind calling
something a
"1.0" is stability, we may want to give them a release to mature a
bit. Of
course we can just release 0.9x for a while until we feel this stuff
has
been tested in a wide enough variety of installations / hadoop
configurations / use cases.
D
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Olga Natkovich <ol...@yahoo-inc.com>
wrote:
Pig Users and Developers,
We are starting to plan the work after Pig 0.9. One thing we need
to decide
is what name/number to give to the next release: Pig 0.10 or Pig 1.0.
I believe that we are ready to declare 1.0. Here are my reasons:
(1) We are mature enough and produce good quality releases
(2) Our interface no longer change in major ways
(3) We have a growing user community and we want the newcomers
to know
that our releases are stable
(4) If the next release is 0.10 and we decide that we should
switch on
the following release going from 0.10 to 1.0 will generate a lot of
confusion.
I wanted to start this conversation and see what others think before
deciding if it is worth while to call a vote.
Olga
