accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ACCUMULO-3176
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:08:34 GMT
> I could understand the veto if the change actually caused one of the
issues mentioned above or the issue that Sean is raising. But it does not.
The eventual consistency of property updates was an issue before this
change and continues to be an issue. This JIRA did not attempt to address
the property update issue.

You said this before I could and I couldn't agree more.

> Everything will break there anyways so users will already have to deal
with the change.

I didn't see any methods removed from the API but I could be missing
something. I just see a new create() method added.


On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Brian Loss <bfloss@praxiseng.com> wrote:

> Aren’t API-breaking changes allowed in 1.7? If this change is ok for 2.0,
> then what is the technical reason why it is ok for version 2.0 but vetoed
> for version 1.7?
>
> > On Nov 25, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about if we push this change in the API out to the client reworking
> in
> > 2.0? Everything will break there anyways so users will already have to
> deal
> > with the change.
> >
> > --
> > Sean
>
>

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