You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@crunch.apache.org by Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> on 2014/04/22 04:30:49 UTC
news, releases, etc.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate our new PMC Chair, Gabriel Reid.
I've been working with Gabriel on Crunch longer than just about anybody,
and he is one of the best software engineers I have ever had the pleasure
of sharing a code base with. Everyone should be so lucky to get to work
with someone like him.
On a completely unrelated note, we've fixed 53 issues since our last
release, which is the usual cadence for us to do a new major release. That
fact, combined with the fact that I'm trying to procrastinate on some other
things I need to do this week, makes me think it's time for 0.8.3 and
0.10.0 (or maybe 0.9.1? Not sure here) to make their way out the door.
J
--
Director of Data Science
Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
Re: news, releases, etc.
Posted by Josh Wills <jo...@gmail.com>.
Alright, I'm on board with 0.10.0. Will start cranking on it tomorrow.
On Apr 22, 2014 11:41 PM, "Gabriel Reid" <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Gabriel Reid <gabriel.reid@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting point about potentially doing a 0.9.1 vs 0.10.0. The 0.8.x
> >> branch seems to be running pretty parallel to the trunk, so it might
> >> be an interesting idea to keep the point release schedule and
> >> numbering somewhat aligned.
> >>
> >> Any other thoughts on that?
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, not sure. I think we've never really done an 0.x.1 release because
> so
> > much was always changing on the API. I know we had a few small-ish
> changes
> > this time, but nothing all that major, which made me think that an 0.9.1
> > would be okay. This felt like primarily a bug fix release.
> >
>
> I just took a look through the list of issues for what is currently
> called 0.10.0, and there are a few that were intentionally left out of
> the 0.8.x branch to avoid breaking compatibility. The ones I saw were:
>
> * CRUNCH-324 - Sample.reservoirSample method name is spelled incorrectly
> * CRUNCH-357 - Allow AvroMode overrides to be less global
> * CRUNCH-216 - Transpose arguments in MapsideJoinStrategy.join
>
> CRUNCH-324 and CRUNCH-357 are actual changes to the API, so people
> using those parts of the API won't be able to compile without updating
> their code -- however, the pieces of the API that are changed are
> probably not used by that many people. CRUNCH-216 added @Deprecated to
> one or two methods, with the intention of a gradual API change.
>
> This has me (mostly) convinced that we should do a 0.10.0 release
> instead of a 0.9.1 (although the bulk of the things are still bug
> fixes and improvements).
>
> - Gabriel
>
Re: news, releases, etc.
Posted by Gabriel Reid <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Gabriel Reid <ga...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> Interesting point about potentially doing a 0.9.1 vs 0.10.0. The 0.8.x
>> branch seems to be running pretty parallel to the trunk, so it might
>> be an interesting idea to keep the point release schedule and
>> numbering somewhat aligned.
>>
>> Any other thoughts on that?
>>
>
> Yeah, not sure. I think we've never really done an 0.x.1 release because so
> much was always changing on the API. I know we had a few small-ish changes
> this time, but nothing all that major, which made me think that an 0.9.1
> would be okay. This felt like primarily a bug fix release.
>
I just took a look through the list of issues for what is currently
called 0.10.0, and there are a few that were intentionally left out of
the 0.8.x branch to avoid breaking compatibility. The ones I saw were:
* CRUNCH-324 - Sample.reservoirSample method name is spelled incorrectly
* CRUNCH-357 - Allow AvroMode overrides to be less global
* CRUNCH-216 - Transpose arguments in MapsideJoinStrategy.join
CRUNCH-324 and CRUNCH-357 are actual changes to the API, so people
using those parts of the API won't be able to compile without updating
their code -- however, the pieces of the API that are changed are
probably not used by that many people. CRUNCH-216 added @Deprecated to
one or two methods, with the intention of a gradual API change.
This has me (mostly) convinced that we should do a 0.10.0 release
instead of a 0.9.1 (although the bulk of the things are still bug
fixes and improvements).
- Gabriel
Re: news, releases, etc.
Posted by Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com>.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Gabriel Reid <ga...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > First of all, I'd like to congratulate our new PMC Chair, Gabriel Reid.
> > I've been working with Gabriel on Crunch longer than just about anybody,
> > and he is one of the best software engineers I have ever had the pleasure
> > of sharing a code base with. Everyone should be so lucky to get to work
> > with someone like him.
>
> Wow, thanks Josh!
>
My pleasure. :)
>
> > On a completely unrelated note, we've fixed 53 issues since our last
> > release, which is the usual cadence for us to do a new major release.
> That
> > fact, combined with the fact that I'm trying to procrastinate on some
> other
> > things I need to do this week, makes me think it's time for 0.8.3 and
> > 0.10.0 (or maybe 0.9.1? Not sure here) to make their way out the door.
>
> +1 to doing new releases.
>
> Interesting point about potentially doing a 0.9.1 vs 0.10.0. The 0.8.x
> branch seems to be running pretty parallel to the trunk, so it might
> be an interesting idea to keep the point release schedule and
> numbering somewhat aligned.
>
> Any other thoughts on that?
>
Yeah, not sure. I think we've never really done an 0.x.1 release because so
much was always changing on the API. I know we had a few small-ish changes
this time, but nothing all that major, which made me think that an 0.9.1
would be okay. This felt like primarily a bug fix release.
>
> - Gabriel
>
--
Director of Data Science
Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
Re: news, releases, etc.
Posted by Gabriel Reid <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> First of all, I'd like to congratulate our new PMC Chair, Gabriel Reid.
> I've been working with Gabriel on Crunch longer than just about anybody,
> and he is one of the best software engineers I have ever had the pleasure
> of sharing a code base with. Everyone should be so lucky to get to work
> with someone like him.
Wow, thanks Josh!
> On a completely unrelated note, we've fixed 53 issues since our last
> release, which is the usual cadence for us to do a new major release. That
> fact, combined with the fact that I'm trying to procrastinate on some other
> things I need to do this week, makes me think it's time for 0.8.3 and
> 0.10.0 (or maybe 0.9.1? Not sure here) to make their way out the door.
+1 to doing new releases.
Interesting point about potentially doing a 0.9.1 vs 0.10.0. The 0.8.x
branch seems to be running pretty parallel to the trunk, so it might
be an interesting idea to keep the point release schedule and
numbering somewhat aligned.
Any other thoughts on that?
- Gabriel