Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-11137-apmail-accumulo-dev-archive=accumulo.apache.org@accumulo.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C29B173B2
	for <apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Thu,  9 Oct 2014 00:00:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 5176 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2014 00:00:57 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@accumulo.apache.org
Received: (qmail 5124 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2014 00:00:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@accumulo.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@accumulo.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@accumulo.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.accumulo.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received: (qmail 5112 invoked by uid 99); 9 Oct 2014 00:00:57 -0000
Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org)
 (140.211.11.15)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:00:57 +0000
Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com (mail-qc0-f171.google.com
 [209.85.216.171])
	by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with
 ESMTPSA id AC6E11A06ED
	for <dev@accumulo.apache.org>; Thu,  9 Oct 2014 00:00:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id i17so143190qcy.30
        for <dev@accumulo.apache.org>; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.83.74 with SMTP id i68mr10479826qgd.18.1412812852298;
 Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.226.81 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <67yekj5729xv9c6rp7608ybs.1412810186919@email.android.com>
References: <67yekj5729xv9c6rp7608ybs.1412810186919@email.android.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 20:00:52 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAL5zq9ZEuD4anT54EHO_FLrxVhojF4=qof4N-+-EcOp-HcDjcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Deprecation removal for 1.7.0
From: Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c12c5e320d650504f2208b

--001a11c12c5e320d650504f2208b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:16 PM, dlmarion <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:

> Personally I think this discussion is headed in the wrong direction. I
> would suggest picking a release numbering policy. Then, develop the
> features for the release and adjust the release number based on the client
> api changes caused by the changes in the release. If someone needs a
> feature but cant afford the client api change, then try to backport it. We
> should try to move forward.
>
>
Certainly... and we've agreed to that idea (though not the specific policy)
in previous conversations, starting with 2.0.0. We have not established
that we would attempt to do this in any way for any 1.x releases, though it
sounds like tending towards that is the general desire.


>
>
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Adam Fuchs <
> afuchs@apache.org> </div><div>Date:10/08/2014  6:55 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> </div><div>To: dev@accumulo.apache.org,Jeremy Kepner <kepner@ll.mit.edu>
> </div><div>Subject: Re: Deprecation removal for 1.7.0 </div><div>
> </div>What's the right level of review? Should we have a public
> announcement
> board of some sort on the website, or is a request for comment on the
> user list sufficient?
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> > Perhaps the process should be changed to require review prior to
> deletion.
> > We can't assume all our users are always scanning the e-mail list.
> > It is a reasonable expectation that we won't break their code.
> >
>

--001a11c12c5e320d650504f2208b--