accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:44:56 GMT
Mike Drob wrote:
>>> It looks like we've had several proposed amendments to the original
>>> >  >  proposal, but I am very unclear on if we are voting on any of them
or if
>>> >  >  they are simply brought up as nice discussion points. There's been
so
>> >  much
>>> >  >  discussion in this VOTE thread (a strange complaint, I know) that
I don't
>>> >  >  have a clear picture of what is up for decision any more.
>>> >  >  There has been so much negotiating and back and forth that I don't
know
>>> >  >  which amendments are part of the vote, which ones are intended to
be a
>>> >  >  follow on vote, and which ones are wild ideas that only a splinter
group
>>> >  >  supports.
>>> >  >
>> >
>> >  I think votes should only be considered as for or against the original
>> >  proposal, discussion can happen after someone votes.
>> >
>> >  Sounds like you're saying that none of them apply. That's fine. In that
> case:
>
> -1.  The language in the initial proposal is vague and imprecise.
>
> Mechanically, where do we apply these guidelines? Are these changes to our
> governance model?
>
> Why are we forcing ourselves to commit to the1.7  API in2.0,  if there is a
> 1.8  that deprecates things? What is so special about1.7  at all?
>
> I agree with John's concerns.
>
> I don't think that we can make practical progress on this issue until we
> have a real proposal in hand. I'd rather not speculate and vote about
> hypothetical APIs.
>

The point of trying to prevent any removals/changes was to satisfy the 
concerns that Sean had raised about ACCUMULO-3176. That's the entire 
basis for this discussion if that helps.

Mime
View raw message