Branching for 0.98

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

Hi all,

Unless there are concerns, I would like to set the date for branching 0.98
out from trunk at one month post the release date of 0.96.0. A RC can be
expected to follow within days, depending on the state of unit tests, the
availability of new 0.96 -> 0.98 upgrade compatibility testing developed
for the release, and the results of that compatibility testing.

-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: Branching for 0.98

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

Earlier discussion suggested people wanted 0.98 to come quickly after 0.96.
I'm fine with that, and am proceeding on that understanding. A longer span,
say December, or let's just say no later than +3 months from 0.96.0, I also
think makes sense. No question 0.98 is a stepping stone to 1.0, and I have
the sense we want to get to 1.0 soon.

What do people prefer? It is not my intent to impose an arbitrary timetable.

> Will 96 and 98 be compatible (rolling upgrade, etc.)?

Yes.

> If yes, should the features be included in 96 dot releases instead.

Some things slated for 0.98 were not included in 0.96 and my understanding
is they will not go in there, but I could easily be mistaken.



On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <se...@hortonworks.com>wrote:

> The question is, why is it coming so fast after 96? How is that explained
> to the users, that's what I meant by "official message". The new features
> could come on normal cadence (December-ish?).
> If these features are stable, is 98 is just a "better 96"? Why would anyone
> use 96 then when 98 is coming out immediately? If we are doing that we
> might as well delay 96 to get them instead of doing another major release
> in a month (wearing the vendor-independent hat).
> Will 96 and 98 be compatible (rolling upgrade, etc.)? If yes, should the
> features be included in 96 dot releases instead. If no 96 becomes a dead
> release, 2 upgrades within 6 weeks to go 94 to latest stable version.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Procedurally, to catch changes on the way to 1.0 that did not land in
> 0.96
> > - API cleanups (esp. with comparators), replacement of KeyValue with
> Cell,
> > inline Cell tags, HFile V3.
> >
> > Not sure there is any "official message". What should it be do you think?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <
> sergey@hortonworks.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > What is the "official message"/purpose of 98? I was meaning to ask for
> > some
> > > time, this thread might be as good a place as any.
> > > In a month after 96 release, people might not have even upgraded from
> 94
> > to
> > > 96 yet, now there's suddenly 98.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Unless there are concerns, I would like to set the date for branching
> > > 0.98
> > > > out from trunk at one month post the release date of 0.96.0. A RC can
> > be
> > > > expected to follow within days, depending on the state of unit tests,
> > the
> > > > availability of new 0.96 -> 0.98 upgrade compatibility testing
> > developed
> > > > for the release, and the results of that compatibility testing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> entity
> > to
> > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> reader
> > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> > that
> > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> > immediately
> > > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: Branching for 0.98

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <se...@hortonworks.com>wrote:

> The question is, why is it coming so fast after 96? How is that explained
> to the users, that's what I meant by "official message". The new features
> could come on normal cadence (December-ish?).
>

We explain it by saying there is a new major release with a few new
features in it.

And after 0.98, there'll be another release in a few months w/ yet more new
features (hopefully a 1.0.0 if 0.98 is not 1.0.0).

We'd like to get back on to a cadence where a new major release comes out
every 2-3 months.  We need to put this over-long 0.96 incubation behind us.
  Short cycles are easier on all concerned; less risk upgrading, less
pressure on devs to make the release date -- they can just catch next one
(as per Lars's precedent over in 0.94).



> If these features are stable, is 98 is just a "better 96"? Why would anyone
> use 96 then when 98 is coming out immediately?



Because they might think 0.96 more stable since it has been baked longer
than the new 0.98 release.  Intent would be that they could upgrade to the
0.98 with a rolling restart anyways so no need to wait on 0.98.



> If we are doing that we
> might as well delay 96 to get them instead of doing another major release
> in a month (wearing the vendor-independent hat).
>

0.96 has been going on for way too long already.  It can't wait any more.

If for some, 0.96 is a 'dead' release because they'll go direct to 0.98 or
1.0.0 direct, well and good.

St.Ack

Re: Branching for 0.98

[Sergey Shelukhin <se...@hortonworks.com>]

The question is, why is it coming so fast after 96? How is that explained
to the users, that's what I meant by "official message". The new features
could come on normal cadence (December-ish?).
If these features are stable, is 98 is just a "better 96"? Why would anyone
use 96 then when 98 is coming out immediately? If we are doing that we
might as well delay 96 to get them instead of doing another major release
in a month (wearing the vendor-independent hat).
Will 96 and 98 be compatible (rolling upgrade, etc.)? If yes, should the
features be included in 96 dot releases instead. If no 96 becomes a dead
release, 2 upgrades within 6 weeks to go 94 to latest stable version.




On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:

> Procedurally, to catch changes on the way to 1.0 that did not land in 0.96
> - API cleanups (esp. with comparators), replacement of KeyValue with Cell,
> inline Cell tags, HFile V3.
>
> Not sure there is any "official message". What should it be do you think?
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <sergey@hortonworks.com
> >wrote:
>
> > What is the "official message"/purpose of 98? I was meaning to ask for
> some
> > time, this thread might be as good a place as any.
> > In a month after 96 release, people might not have even upgraded from 94
> to
> > 96 yet, now there's suddenly 98.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Unless there are concerns, I would like to set the date for branching
> > 0.98
> > > out from trunk at one month post the release date of 0.96.0. A RC can
> be
> > > expected to follow within days, depending on the state of unit tests,
> the
> > > availability of new 0.96 -> 0.98 upgrade compatibility testing
> developed
> > > for the release, and the results of that compatibility testing.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> > --
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
> to
> > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that
> > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> immediately
> > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

-- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
and delete it from your system. Thank You.

Re: Branching for 0.98

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

Procedurally, to catch changes on the way to 1.0 that did not land in 0.96
- API cleanups (esp. with comparators), replacement of KeyValue with Cell,
inline Cell tags, HFile V3.

Not sure there is any "official message". What should it be do you think?


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <se...@hortonworks.com>wrote:

> What is the "official message"/purpose of 98? I was meaning to ask for some
> time, this thread might be as good a place as any.
> In a month after 96 release, people might not have even upgraded from 94 to
> 96 yet, now there's suddenly 98.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Unless there are concerns, I would like to set the date for branching
> 0.98
> > out from trunk at one month post the release date of 0.96.0. A RC can be
> > expected to follow within days, depending on the state of unit tests, the
> > availability of new 0.96 -> 0.98 upgrade compatibility testing developed
> > for the release, and the results of that compatibility testing.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: Branching for 0.98

[Sergey Shelukhin <se...@hortonworks.com>]

What is the "official message"/purpose of 98? I was meaning to ask for some
time, this thread might be as good a place as any.
In a month after 96 release, people might not have even upgraded from 94 to
96 yet, now there's suddenly 98.



On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Unless there are concerns, I would like to set the date for branching 0.98
> out from trunk at one month post the release date of 0.96.0. A RC can be
> expected to follow within days, depending on the state of unit tests, the
> availability of new 0.96 -> 0.98 upgrade compatibility testing developed
> for the release, and the results of that compatibility testing.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

-- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
and delete it from your system. Thank You.