You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> on 2017/03/28 20:19:41 UTC
[DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?
Hi folks!
What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in
1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could
count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
1.y major release series.
Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the
faint of heart.
Thoughts?
Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to
HBase 2.0?
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
I'm partial to 2.0.0-alpha[x]/beta[x]
* Conveys that it's 2.x (not 1.x)
* Conveys "instability"
* Doesn't buck Maven's view of the world (Maven is happy with a version
string of 2.0.0-alpha)
* Still enables a "2.0.0" later
Sean Busbey wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
>
> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in
> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
>
> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could
> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
> 1.y major release series.
>
> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the
> faint of heart.
>
>
> Thoughts?
Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to
HBase 2.0?
Posted by Jerry He <je...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 2.0.0-alpha/beta. I think each of the alpha or beta will go through
RCs as well.
Thanks.
Jerry
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Phil Yang <ud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on alpha/beta, too. If they are not enough we can also have 2.0.0-rc :)
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
> 2017-03-29 12:18 GMT+08:00 Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com>:
>
> > +1 on -alpha/-beta, and cannot wait to see an alpha1 out (smile)
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Yu
> >
> > On 29 March 2017 at 10:28, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on 2.0.0-alpha[x]/2.0.0-beta[x].
> > >
> > > 2017-03-29 10:07 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > That settles it. :-)
> > > >
> > > > I'd also be cool with -alpha, -beta, etc.
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99
> > regardless
> > > > of
> > > > > content.
> > > > >
> > > > > Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an
> answer
> > > for
> > > > > this:
> > > > > http://semver.org/#spec-item-9
> > > > >
> > > > > From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I
> would
> > > > > suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I
> think
> > we
> > > > > should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for
> > > > > anything but packaging work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enis
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi folks!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to
> HBase
> > > > >> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be
> > in
> > > > >> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
> > > > >> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For
> 2.0,
> > > > >> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we
> > could
> > > > >> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
> > > > >> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with
> the
> > > > >> 1.y major release series.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
> > > > >> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
> > > > >> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
> > > > >> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases
> are
> > > > >> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for
> > the
> > > > >> faint of heart.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to
HBase 2.0?
Posted by Phil Yang <ud...@gmail.com>.
+1 on alpha/beta, too. If they are not enough we can also have 2.0.0-rc :)
Thanks,
Phil
2017-03-29 12:18 GMT+08:00 Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com>:
> +1 on -alpha/-beta, and cannot wait to see an alpha1 out (smile)
>
> Best Regards,
> Yu
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 10:28, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 on 2.0.0-alpha[x]/2.0.0-beta[x].
> >
> > 2017-03-29 10:07 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > That settles it. :-)
> > >
> > > I'd also be cool with -alpha, -beta, etc.
> > >
> > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99
> regardless
> > > of
> > > > content.
> > > >
> > > > Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an answer
> > for
> > > > this:
> > > > http://semver.org/#spec-item-9
> > > >
> > > > From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I would
> > > > suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think
> we
> > > > should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for
> > > > anything but packaging work.
> > > >
> > > > Enis
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi folks!
> > > >>
> > > >> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
> > > >> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
> > > >>
> > > >> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be
> in
> > > >> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
> > > >> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
> > > >> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
> > > >>
> > > >> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we
> could
> > > >> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
> > > >> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
> > > >> 1.y major release series.
> > > >>
> > > >> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
> > > >> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
> > > >> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
> > > >> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
> > > >> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for
> the
> > > >> faint of heart.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thoughts?
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to
HBase 2.0?
Posted by Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com>.
+1 on -alpha/-beta, and cannot wait to see an alpha1 out (smile)
Best Regards,
Yu
On 29 March 2017 at 10:28, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on 2.0.0-alpha[x]/2.0.0-beta[x].
>
> 2017-03-29 10:07 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>:
>
> > That settles it. :-)
> >
> > I'd also be cool with -alpha, -beta, etc.
> >
> > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99 regardless
> > of
> > > content.
> > >
> > > Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an answer
> for
> > > this:
> > > http://semver.org/#spec-item-9
> > >
> > > From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I would
> > > suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think we
> > > should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for
> > > anything but packaging work.
> > >
> > > Enis
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi folks!
> > >>
> > >> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
> > >> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
> > >>
> > >> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in
> > >> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
> > >> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
> > >> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
> > >>
> > >> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could
> > >> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
> > >> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
> > >> 1.y major release series.
> > >>
> > >> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
> > >> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
> > >> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
> > >> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
> > >> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the
> > >> faint of heart.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to
HBase 2.0?
Posted by "张铎 (Duo Zhang)" <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 2.0.0-alpha[x]/2.0.0-beta[x].
2017-03-29 10:07 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>:
> That settles it. :-)
>
> I'd also be cool with -alpha, -beta, etc.
>
> > On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99 regardless
> of
> > content.
> >
> > Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an answer for
> > this:
> > http://semver.org/#spec-item-9
> >
> > From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I would
> > suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think we
> > should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for
> > anything but packaging work.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi folks!
> >>
> >> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
> >> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
> >>
> >> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in
> >> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
> >> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
> >> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
> >>
> >> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could
> >> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
> >> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
> >> 1.y major release series.
> >>
> >> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
> >> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
> >> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
> >> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
> >> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the
> >> faint of heart.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
That settles it. :-)
I'd also be cool with -alpha, -beta, etc.
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99 regardless of
> content.
>
> Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an answer for
> this:
> http://semver.org/#spec-item-9
>
> From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I would
> suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think we
> should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for
> anything but packaging work.
>
> Enis
>
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
>> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
>>
>> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in
>> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
>> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
>> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
>>
>> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could
>> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
>> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
>> 1.y major release series.
>>
>> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
>> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
>> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
>> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
>> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the
>> faint of heart.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to
HBase 2.0?
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
2.0.0-alpha / 2.0.0-beta sound good to me.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99 regardless of
> content.
>
> Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an answer for
> this:
> http://semver.org/#spec-item-9
>
> From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I would
> suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think we
> should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for
> anything but packaging work.
>
> Enis
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
> > 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
> >
> > For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in
> > 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
> > 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
> > continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
> >
> > This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could
> > count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
> > than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
> > 1.y major release series.
> >
> > Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
> > based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
> > 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
> > futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
> > both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the
> > faint of heart.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to
HBase 2.0?
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
I would automatically -1 any release with a number like 1.99 regardless of
content.
Semantic versioning which we are following already provides an answer for
this:
http://semver.org/#spec-item-9
From my experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I would
suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think we
should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for
anything but packaging work.
Enis
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase
> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet?
>
> For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in
> 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0,
> 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,
> continuing this pattern would be done with 1.99, I suppose.
>
> This issue I take with this approach is that back before 1.0, we could
> count on users thinking of 0.99 as a different major release train
> than 0.98. Now, I'm concerned that some might lump 1.99 in with the
> 1.y major release series.
>
> Alternatively we could expressly label the releases as alpha/beta
> based on our confidence. This would give us 2.0.0-alpha1,
> 2.0.0-alpha2, etc, 2.0.0-beta1, etc. This has the disadvantage of
> futzing with sort order, but clearly conveys that these releases are
> both part of what will be the 2.y major release series and not for the
> faint of heart.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>