accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ACCUMULO-3176
Date Mon, 01 Dec 2014 20:29:54 GMT
I'm not sure what questions weren't previously answered in my explanations,
could you please restate which ever ones you want clarification on?

The vote is closed and only has 2 binding +1s. That means it fails under
consensus rules regardless of my veto, so the issue seems moot.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> So, it's been 5 days since last activity here, and there are still some
> questions/requests for response left unanswered regarding the veto. I'd
> really like a response to these questions so we can put this issue to rest.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Responses to a few things below.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Brian Loss <bfloss@praxiseng.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Aren’t API-breaking changes allowed in 1.7? If this change is ok for
> >> 2.0,
> >> > then what is the technical reason why it is ok for version 2.0 but
> >> vetoed
> >> > for version 1.7?
> >> >
> >> > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > How about if we push this change in the API out to the client
> >> reworking
> >> > in
> >> > > 2.0? Everything will break there anyways so users will already have
> to
> >> > deal
> >> > > with the change.
> >> >
> >>
> >> As I previously mentioned, API breaking changes are allowed on major
> >> revisions. Currently, 1.7 is a major revision (and I have consistently
> >> argued for it to remain classified as such). That doesn't mean we
> >> shouldn't
> >> consider the cost to end users of making said changes.
> >>
> >> There is no way to know that there won't be a 1.8 or later version after
> >> 1.7 and before 2.0. We already have consensus to do a sweeping overhaul
> of
> >> the API for that later release and have had that consensus for quite
> some
> >> time. Since users will already have to deal with that breakage in 2.0 I
> >> don't see this improvement as worth making them deal with changes prior
> to
> >> that.
> >>
> >>
> > So, are you arguing for no more API additions until 2.0? Because, that's
> > what it sounds like. As is, your general objection to the API seems to be
> > independent of this change, but reflective of an overall policy for API
> > additions. Please address why your argument applies to this specific
> > change, and wouldn't to other API additions. Otherwise, this seems to be
> a
> > case of special pleading.
> >
> > Please address the fact that there is no breakage here, and we can ensure
> > that there won't be any more removal (except in exceptional
> circumstances)
> > of deprecated APIs until 2.0 to ease changes. (I actually think that
> would
> > be a very reasonable policy to adopt today.) In addition, I fully expect
> > that 2.0 will be fully compatible with 1.7, and will also not introduce
> any
> > breakage except removal of things already deprecated in 1.7. If we make
> > this change without marking the previous createTable methods as
> deprecated,
> > this new API addition AND the previous createTable API will still be
> > available in 2.0 (as deprecated), and will not be removed until 3.0.
> >
> > You have also previously argued for more intermediate releases between
> > major releases. Please explain how you see omitting this API addition is
> > compatible with that goal. Please also explain why, if you consider 1.7
> to
> > be a major (expected) release, why such an addition would not be
> > appropriate, but would be appropriate for a future major release (2.0).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bill Havanki <
> >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In my interpretation of Sean's veto, what he says is bad - using the
> >> ASF
> >> > > word here - is not that the change leaves the property update
> >> unsolved.
> >> > > It's that it changes the API without completely solving it. The
> >> purpose
> >> > of
> >> > > the change is not explicitly to alter the API, but it does cause
> that
> >> to
> >> > > happen, and it is that aspect that is "bad" (with the given
> >> > justification).
> >> > > I just want to clarify my reasoning.
> >> > >
> >> > > That is my current understanding, as well. Additionally, it seems
to
> >> me
> >> > that the two things that make it "bad" is that it A) doesn't achieve
> an
> >> > additional purpose (which can be achieved with additional work), and
> >> that
> >> > B) it deprecates existing methods (which can be avoided). Unless
> there's
> >> > some other reason that makes it a "bad" change, or something else that
> >> we
> >> > still need to discuss, I would urge Sean to retract his veto with the
> >> > proposed compromise to not deprecate and the creation of an
> independent
> >> > JIRA issue to address the concerns about update race conditions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Back and forth negotiation to find a solution that addresses both the
> >> concerns of an objector and the proposer of a change should happen on
> the
> >> jira and/or reviewboard for that change. They should not happen on a
> >> formal
> >> VOTE thread following that objection; they most certainly should not
> only
> >> happen after an attempt to use process to ignore the concerns has
> failed.
> >>
> >>
> > Nobody is ignoring the concerns raised. We are attempting to resolve
> those
> > through reasonable dialogue and are attempting to lobby you to retract
> your
> > veto, after addressing your concerns, in accordance with the section of
> the
> > bylaws which describes vetoes. This is the appropriate place to do that,
> > because a consensus vote is not simply a number tallying action, as a
> > majority vote might be considered to be.
> >
> >
> >> That said, I am generally a proponent of not letting "where discussion
> >> should happen" get in the way of reaching consensus. However, in this
> case
> >> I don't think we have sufficient time to work through the details of
> why I
> >> don't find API sprawl a compelling fix for my concerns. I know I
> >> definitely
> >> don't have the spoons for it.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, but if you are unwilling to defend your veto further, I don't
> > see how you can expect it to be binding. Please address why this change
> > could not be introduced with the compromise proposed.
> >
> >
> >> I have offered a reasonable compromise position that addresses both my
> >> concerns while adding the feature you want. Please take it.
> >>
> >> Another reasonable compromise has also been proposed that seems to
> > address all of your concerns. Please explain why it does not.
> >
> > I would also like to add that inclusion of this now would greatly help me
> > add the wiring necessary for the new API.
> >
> >
> >> I don't think I'll have time to be on email again before the vote
> closes.
> >> You may consider my -1 withdrawn if the change is restricted to 2.0
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > I understand that the use cases enabled by this patch are
> sufficiently
> >> > > compelling for you. They are not sufficiently compelling for me,
> >> hence my
> >> > > veto.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > I don't know that there is a requirement to make every code addition
> >> > sufficiently compelling to every developer, in order to include it. If
> >> that
> >> > were the case, I don't think many features would have made it in. This
> >> > seems to be an anti-progress position if we allow it to become the
> >> norm. It
> >> > seems to me that there should be compelling reasons to reject a
> >> > contribution that does not break or affect existing functionality.
> >> >
> >>
> >> This VOTE thread is also not the place to get into a discussion of our
> >> governance model. However, what you are saying is directly opposed to
> the
> >> fundamental way code changes work in Apache projects; it's the "Review"
> >> part of Commit Then Review and Review Then Commit. We use the former
> >> because we presume that most changes will be compelling. Because every
> >> part
> >> of "compelling" and "cost" is hugely subjective we require that vetoes
> >> come
> >> with a rationale.
> >>
> >> It is indeed very anti-progress. That's one of the overheads of being
> in a
> >> community. It's also why I have previously stated that these change
> votes
> >> should be Majority Approval instead of Consensus Approval.
> >>
> >> > Also, since you can only veto
> >> > changesets, and not release candidates, I don't see what would stop a
> >> > release manager from backporting this changeset to 1.7 prior to its
> >> release
> >> > if we push it to a 2.0 branch. I don't see why this improvement must
> be
> >> > postponed.
> >>
> >> The thing that would stop them is that we are a community. It would be
> >> incredibly rude for a release manager to do this after the restriction
> to
> >> 2.0 was the end compromise reached. We are not in a state of nature and
> >> the
> >> bylaws are not our leviathan. We are a group working towards common
> goals.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean
> >>
> >
> >
>



-- 
Sean

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