accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Official Guidance to users regarding removal of functions
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:11:26 GMT
Billie,

Not to be glib, but it reads like your suggestion to Jeremy for when we
have a 2.0.0 release (assuming semver passes) is to take option (2) Don't
upgrade Accumulo.

Please correct my misunderstanding.

Mike

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi <billie@apache.org> wrote:

> 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