accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] More Versioning Discussion
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2014 03:05:38 GMT
That's a fair point, but the main point I was trying to make using
that example was that there are concrete efforts which have been made
to inch closer to better compatibility guarantees, and
compatibility... specifically within a supported release line... is
something that we routinely consider and discuss.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 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
View raw message