accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:23:44 GMT
Accidentally sent to just Shawn before

Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "John Vines" <vines@apache.org>
Date: Dec 3, 2014 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0
To: "Sean Busbey" <busbey@cloudera.com>
Cc:

Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
On Dec 3, 2014 9:49 AM, "Sean Busbey" <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> -1 also, ATM. I'd like to see us freeze APIs between now and the 2.0
release.
>
> Downstream users have to plan when they invest effort in migrating
Accumulo versions. We've already signaled that 2.0 will be the start of a
new API with long-lived compatibility promises. (We should keep signaling
this.) That makes it a promising place to make a jump (in some cases, from
1.4 I'm sure).
>
> I would like to avoid, however possible, leaning those users towards
ignoring releases between now and 2.0. For those who are back on 1.4 or 1.5
we can't really do too much. For those on 1.6 we can make it so there is
relatively little risk in moving forward.
>
> API additions matter here because when a system integrator makes an
application on top of Accumulo they often start at the latest version they
can find. Later, they may have a client with a regulatory requirement to
use an earlier version. Porting backwards is just as hard as porting
forwards in our code base.
>

I have an issue with this line of reasoning. Not allowing new APIs for your
reasoning sounds like a poor reason for not adding them. If we had no talk
of doing a 2.0, making a request like that would be considered utterly
unreasonable. And it's also a bit invalid given we already have other new
APIs added.

> I'd also like to see the "no removing of deprecated" language
strengthened to remove the exception for things deprecated prior to 1.7.
>
> Yes, this will severely constrain what we can do prior to 2.0. But I
think doing otherwise will just encourage us to keep squeezing in "just one
more" major pre-2.0 release to get some additional client facing feature
out the door.
>

If this is a concern then we should put effort into dictating a roadmap for
features for 1.7 and 2.0. Enforcing this via API alteration limitations
doesn't seem to be the right way to do this.

> If we have some downstream users with different compatibility needs and
with particular operational needs for features that are delayed to 2.0
because of this decision, it should be straight forward for them to
backport the things they need and run their own packaging. Plenty of folks
who don't need the legal indemnification that the ASF provides do this for
a wide variety of projects.
>

Let's not go into a discussion about telling people to fork the code and do
their own thing, shall we?

>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:07 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> -1 I do not like the idea of committing to 1.7.0-1.9.9... API additions
for
>> the 2.0 API. We have already come to the consensus that 2.0 will break
the
>> 1.x API which provides a lot of breathing room and freedom from old
>> decisions. This causes this issue to come roaring back and an even larger
>> amount of scrutiny to be required for all 1.7.0-1.9.9... API changes. I
>> would go so far as to say an undefinable amount of scrutiny since we
still
>> don't have solid foundation of a 2.0 API. We cannot judge API items for
how
>> well they belong in an API that does not exist yet.
>>
>> Tangential- I would like to see a clause about all current API items will
>> not be removed (still could be deprecated) until 2.0.0, as I feel this
may
>> ease some concerns about API alteration in 1.7+.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Following the conversation on the [VOTE] thread for ACCUMULO-3176, it
seems
>> > we require an explicit API guidelines at least for 1.7.0 and later
until
>> > 2.0.0.
>> >
>> > I hereby propose we adopt the following guidelines for future releases
(if
>> > we produce any such releases) until 2.0.0:
>> >
>> > API additions are permitted in "major" 1.x releases (1.7, 1.8, 1.9,
1.10,
>> > etc.).
>> > API should be forwards and backwards compatible within a 1.x release
(no
>> > new additions to the API in a "bugfix" release; e.g. 1.7.1).
>> > New API in 1.7.0 and later 1.x releases will not be removed in 2.0
(though
>> > they may be deprecated in 2.0 and subject to removal in 3.0).
>> > Existing API in 1.7.0 will be preserved through 2.0, and should only be
>> > subject to removal if it was already deprecated prior to 1.7.0 (though
they
>> > may be deprecated in 2.0 and subject to removal in 3.0).
>> >
>> > The purpose of these guidelines are to ensure the ability to add
additional
>> > functionality and evolve API naturally, while minimizing API
disruptions to
>> > the user base, in the interim before 2.0.0 when we can formally adopt
an
>> > API/versioning policy.
>> >
>> > Exceptions to these guidelines should be subject to a majority vote,
on a
>> > case-by-case basis.
>> >
>> > Because these relate to release planning, this vote will be subject to
>> > majority vote, in accordance with our bylaws pertaining to release
planning
>> > and voting, and will be open for 3 days, concluding at 2000 on 5 Dec
2014
>> > UTC.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean

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