2.6, was Re: Breaking changes after 3.0, versioning, IMPALA-3307

[Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>]

周胜为, I don’t understand exactly what the issue is or how it relates to time
zones. Can you elaborate?


On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:00 PM 周胜为 <86...@qq.com> wrote:

> I use impala version is 2.6.  I just can not get StringVal value, but can
> get BigintVal value------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
> 发件人: "Csaba Ringhofer"<cs...@cloudera.com>
> 发送时间: 2018年6月5日(星期二) 凌晨4:45
> 收件人: "dev"<de...@impala.apache.org>;
> 主题: Breaking changes after 3.0, versioning, IMPALA-3307
>
>
> Hi Folks!
>
>  We had a discussion with a few people about the versioning of Impala after
> 3.0. The motivation was that IMPALA-3307 (which replaces the timezone
> implementation in Impala, and contains some breaking changes) missed 3.0
> and we are not sure about the version in which it can be released - is it
> 3.1 or 4.0?
>
> A. jumping to 4.0 would communicate clearly that the release contains
> braking changes - if the plan for Impala is to follow semantic versioning,
> than this is the way to go
>
> B. releasing it in 3.1 would communicate that the change is too small for a
> major version bump, and major versions are kept for BIG changes in Impala
>
> My personal preference is for B - if a breaking change is relatively small
> and workarounds are possible + the community agrees, then it should be
> possible to release it in minor a version, while major versions could be
> kept for changes where switching Impala version needs large effort on the
> user's side (for example 2->3 jump needs new Java and Hadoop major
> version), or when a huge improvement is added to Impala which deserves
> extra attention. This is more of an aesthetic than a rational choice on my
> side, so I am totally ok with semantic versioning too, if the community
> prefers it.