accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] More Versioning Discussion
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2014 01:51:52 GMT
For a little bit of historical context - when filing ACCUMULO-751 to ask
for wire compatibility, I had no intention of providing both forward and
backwards compatibility. I really wanted the ability to do rolling upgrades
where I could upgrade tablet servers one-by-one and not have suffer any
cluster downtime. Everything else could be completely incompatible, but as
long as the cluster could handle a part upgraded state, then that was fine.


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Sean comment on ACCUMULO-2343:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2343?focusedCommentId=13973504&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13973504
>
> I was going to comment in IRC or in response in JIRA, but I think this
> would better serve the group to discuss here.
>
> My response was going to be:
>
> You seem to keep insisting that we don't have consensus on basic API
> guarantees. I don't think that's true. We may not have a complete
> policy, but I think we have some agreement on some of the basics of
> what we want users to be able to expect. It's still a good idea to
> think about compatibility forwards and backwards, within a release
> line, and I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. Lack of complete
> policy is not the same as lack of agreement on some of the things that
> policy would contain. Perhaps we've been too permissive in the past
> and not pushed back as hard on it, in order to avoid controversy, but
> I don't think it's a lack of agreement at play.
>
> My question for the larger group is:
>
> Am I wrong? Do we, or do we not, want compatibility between different
> versions in a release line (1.4.x, 1.5.x, 1.6.x, etc.)?
>
> My suspicion is that we do, and it's the reason I introduced the wire
> version in 1.5.x, as a step towards this. I'd like us to continue
> making steps towards this, and even in the absence of a strict
> versioning policy, we take care to think about this, and be less
> permissive about introduction of changes within a release line that
> would not be compatible with previous releases in that line.
>
> In my view, *any* comprehensive versioning policy we adopt is going to
> include the idea that the last segment of the versioning denotes a
> bugfix release. Is there any possibility at all that we'd adopt a
> policy that doesn't include this? I think not. So, why not be more
> strict about this now?
>
> Personally, I'd love to start vetoing non-bugfix changes to previous
> release lines, but I want to ensure that I'm doing so with the
> community, and not against it.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message