I'd like to see HiveCLI, HiveServer, and the original JDBC driver deprecated and purged from the codebase before the 1.0 release. This topic probably needs its own thread, but I thought I should mention it here.
Thanks. - Carl On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I am the RM for HBase-1.0 coming in a a couple of weeks (hopefully). I > think both HBase and Hive are past due for doing 1.0 releases. So I am a > major +1 for Hive-1.0 (non-binding of course). > > The important thing for calling something 1.0 I think is the focus on user > level API and compatibility issues. But still, you should think about > future releases and for example when you can do a 1.x release versus 2.x > release. We have started thinking about that some time ago, and we are > adopting a semantic versioning proposal ( > > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201411.mbox/%3c53115341.900549.1416100552603.javamail.ya...@jws106116.mail.bf1.yahoo.com%3E > ) > for this exact same reason. In Hive, things may be a bit different than > HBase or Hadoop (since the major interface is SQL) but still I think you > should consider the implications for all the APIs that Hive surfaces and > for deployment, etc for a 1.0 discussion. > > For HBase, the official "theme" of the 1.0 release is (from my RC mail): > > The theme of (eventual) 1.0 release is to > > become a stable base for future 1.x series of releases. 1.0 release will > > aim to achieve at least the same level of stability of 0.98 releases > > without introducing too many new features. > > What I am getting at is that, in HBase, we opted for not introducing a lot > of major features and branched relatively early to give more time to > stabilize the branch. In the end what you want to deliver and market as 1.0 > should be relatively stable in my opinion. Just my 2 cents from an outsider > perspective. > > Enis > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Would everyone just laugh if I suggested that a 1.0 release ought to > > include complete documentation? > > > > > > -- Lefty > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The reasons for confusion in the Hadoop case were different. There > > > were many branches, and new features were added in minor version > > > releases, eg kerberos security was not there in "0.20.2", but it was > > > added in "0.20.20x". Then you had other versions like "0.21", but the > > > older "0.20.20x" version was the one that was converted as 1.x. > > > > > > This confusion isn't there in hive. In case of hive, every "0.x" > > > release has been adding new features, and releases have been > > > sequential. "0.x.y" releases have been maintenance releases. 1.0 is a > > > sequential release after 0.14, and it is a newer release than 0.14. I > > > agree that the version in Hadoop created lot of confusion, but I don't > > > see this as being the same. We could check in the user mailing list to > > > see if they are going to be HUGELY confused by this. > > > > > > If it makes things better, we can also include the change to delete > > > HiveServer1 in the new release. That is a safer change, which was > > > mainly just deleting that old code. That would be a major difference > > > from 0.14. (The docs have already been updated to say that 0.14 does > > > not support 0.20, so I don't think we need that in 1.0). > > > > > > Looks like we have agreement that 1.0 versioning scheme is a great > > > thing for hive. I don't think there is a strong reason to delay a 1.0 > > > release by several months to the detriment of hive. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Xuefu Zhang <xzh...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > > Major release means more functionality, while minor releases provides > > > > stability. Therefore, I'd think, 1.0, as a major release, should > bring > > in > > > > something new to the user. If it's desirable to provide more stable > > > > release, then 0.14.1, 0.14.2, and so on are the right ones. In my > > > opinion, > > > > we should avoid doing anti-pattern by introducing major release like > a > > > > maintenance release and creating confusions among users. > > > > > > > > In one word, major release is NOT equal to major confusion. > > > > > > > > --Xuefu > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Sergey Shelukhin < > > ser...@hortonworks.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think it's better to do 1.0 release off a maintenance release, > since > > > that > > > >> is more stable. Trunk is moving fast. > > > >> HBase uses odd release numbers for this purpose, where 0.95, 97, 99 > > etc. > > > >> are dev releases and 0.96, 0.98, 1.0 etc. are public; that works > well > > > for > > > >> baking, but since we don't have that seems like 14.0 would be a good > > > place > > > >> to bake. 15.0 with bunch of new bugs that we are busy introducing > may > > > not > > > >> be as good for 1.0 IMHO... > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Thejas, > > > >> > > > > >> > Thank you very much for your proposal! > > > >> > > > > >> > Hadoop did something similar renaming branches to branch-1 and > > > >> > branch-2. At the time, although I was very much in favor of the > new > > > >> > release numbers, I thought it could have been handled better. > > Renaming > > > >> > release branches ended up being very confusing for users and I > had a > > > >> > ton of conversations with users about how releases were related. > > > >> > > > > >> > In this situation, I feel the situation is similar, we'll release > > 1.0 > > > >> > which is really just the second maintainence release of the 0.14 > > > >> > branch. Thus it's 1.0 but really it's just 0.14 + some fixes. I > feel > > > >> > this will again be confusing for users. For this important > change, I > > > >> > think we should use a new release vehicle. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thus, I'd suggest we do the rename in trunk, soon, and then the > next > > > >> > release of Hive will be 1.0. > > > >> > > > > >> > Cheers, > > > >> > Brock > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Thejas Nair < > > the...@hortonworks.com> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > Apache Hive is the de facto SQL query engine in the hadoop > > > ecosystem. > > > >> > > I believe it is also the most widely used one as well. Hive is > > used > > > in > > > >> > > production in large number of enterprises. > > > >> > > However, this 0.x.y versioning that we have been using for Hive > > > >> > > obscures this status of Hive. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I propose creating a 1.0 release out of the 0.14 branch of Hive. > > We > > > >> > > already have some bug fixes for 0.14 release that have been > added > > to > > > >> > > the branch and a maintenance release is due. Having it out of > this > > > >> > > maintenance branch would create a better first 1.0 version, and > we > > > >> > > would be able to do it soon. What would have been 0.15 version > > would > > > >> > > then become 1.1 version . > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thoughts ? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > >> > > Thejas > > > >> > > > > > >> > > -- > > > >> > > 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. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> 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. > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > 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. > > > > > >
