accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <bil...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Official Guidance to users regarding removal of functions
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:07:14 GMT
To clarify John's question: if our vote to adopt semver 2.0.0 passes, our
intention will be to no longer have breaking public API changes unless the
major version number is incremented, i.e. 1.x.x -> 2.x.x. An important
aspect of semantic versioning is defining what is considered part of the
public API. So if there are things you need to remain consistent that are
not covered by Section 9 of the README, we should discuss adding them.
Actually, strengthening what we consider to be the public API is likely to
be a separate conversation in which (I hope) we will engage the user list.
On Dec 11, 2014 11:51 AM, "John Vines" <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> Wouldn't this be resolved with our SemVer sqwitch?
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Kepner, Jeremy - 0553 - MITLL <
> kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > When we remove functions, do we have any official guidance to our users
> > who may have built applications that use those functions?
> >
> > Right now, the official position is that the Accumulo developers can
> > remove based on a consensus vote. However, this provides no guidance to
> > users as to what they are suppose to do? As it stands, our guidance is
> that
> > they have the following choices:
> >
> > (0) Diligently watch the Accumulo e-mail list and aggressively weigh in
> on
> > any vote to remove functions that may impact them.
> >
> > (1) Find someone to modify the original source code of their
> applications,
> > build it, and *re-verify* the application. I emphasise the re-verify
> > because that is usually the most costly part of the process that often
> > won't get approved by management.
> >
> > (2) Don't upgrade Accumulo.
> >
>

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