accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning
Date Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:51:49 GMT
[X]: adopt semver 2.0.0 (http://semver.org)
[ ]: adopt additional strictness to require documenting deprecation for at
least 1 major release before possible to consider in the next major release
[X]: adopt additional strictness to ensure forward compatibility between
bugfix releases
[ ]: start operating under whatever rules we adopt as of the master branch
[ ]: keep the master branch named 1.7.0
[X]: define scope of these versioning compatibility rules to  be our
current definition of "public API" and the wire version


On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> It would be helpful to this thread, if we can get some informal votes on
> the following propositions:
>
> [ ]: adopt semver 2.0.0 (http://semver.org)
> [ ]: adopt additional strictness to require documenting deprecation for at
> least 1 major release before possible to consider in the next major release
> [ ]: adopt additional strictness to ensure forward compatibility between
> bugfix releases
> [ ]: start operating under whatever rules we adopt as of the master branch
> [ ]: keep the master branch named 1.7.0
> [ ]: define scope of these versioning compatibility rules to  be our
> current definition of "public API" and the wire version
>
> I'm going to assume it's a given that if any exceptional situations arise,
> we'll handle those through further discussions/voting, as appropriate.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:41 PM,<dlmarion@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >>
> >>  >  +1 to semver
> >>> >  +1 to 1 major release before removing deprecated items
> >>> >  +1 to forward compatibility between bugfix releases
> >>> >
> >>> >  What's the version # for the master branch if these rules are
> applied?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >> Well, I'd say1.7  still, since it is consistent with our existing rules
> >> for
> >> determining a "major" releasetoday,  *and*  it matches semver definition
> >> of
> >> a "minor" release, because it doesn't break backwards-compatibility
> >> compatibility from1.6  (with one tiny exception of dropping
> >> Instance.getConfiguration()... because it was an exceptional situation
> >> discussed in previous threads; if people are uncomfortable with that
> >> exception, I can return it to the API, if it helps achieve consensus
> >> here).
> >>
> >>
> > Sounds right to me.
> >
> > When we actually have code to land in Apache for 2.0.0, I figured we'd
> > break 1.7.X off to branch named "1.7" and master would become 2.0.0. We
> can
> > have some feature branch in Apache off to the side to make sure 2.0.0
> > development can happen in a shared environment before making the above
> > switch.
> >
>


On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> It would be helpful to this thread, if we can get some informal votes on
> the following propositions:
>
> [ ]: adopt semver 2.0.0 (http://semver.org)
> [ ]: adopt additional strictness to require documenting deprecation for at
> least 1 major release before possible to consider in the next major release
> [ ]: adopt additional strictness to ensure forward compatibility between
> bugfix releases
> [ ]: start operating under whatever rules we adopt as of the master branch
> [ ]: keep the master branch named 1.7.0
> [ ]: define scope of these versioning compatibility rules to  be our
> current definition of "public API" and the wire version
>
> I'm going to assume it's a given that if any exceptional situations arise,
> we'll handle those through further discussions/voting, as appropriate.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:41 PM,<dlmarion@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >>
> >>  >  +1 to semver
> >>> >  +1 to 1 major release before removing deprecated items
> >>> >  +1 to forward compatibility between bugfix releases
> >>> >
> >>> >  What's the version # for the master branch if these rules are
> applied?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >> Well, I'd say1.7  still, since it is consistent with our existing rules
> >> for
> >> determining a "major" releasetoday,  *and*  it matches semver definition
> >> of
> >> a "minor" release, because it doesn't break backwards-compatibility
> >> compatibility from1.6  (with one tiny exception of dropping
> >> Instance.getConfiguration()... because it was an exceptional situation
> >> discussed in previous threads; if people are uncomfortable with that
> >> exception, I can return it to the API, if it helps achieve consensus
> >> here).
> >>
> >>
> > Sounds right to me.
> >
> > When we actually have code to land in Apache for 2.0.0, I figured we'd
> > break 1.7.X off to branch named "1.7" and master would become 2.0.0. We
> can
> > have some feature branch in Apache off to the side to make sure 2.0.0
> > development can happen in a shared environment before making the above
> > switch.
> >
>

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