accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ACCUMULO-3176
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:31:11 GMT
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:

> Let's please try to not get snarky here, Dave. We're all trying to have a
> reasonable discussion, get to the real issues, and figure out how we can
> work through them without stomping on anyone. As always, you are welcome to
> fork for you personal reasons -- I don't want to force you down that path,
> but this is going to take some more time to resolve.
> Obligatory thank you to Sean for writing up his opinions: it helps us all
> understand what would be acceptable presently for him to retract his veto
> in addition to what he sees as the current issues.
> What I took away from his response: we need to (re)visit what 1.7.0 is
> really going to be. Rightfully so, we left 1.7 as a intermediate release to
> let us continue to develop, with the intent to do 2.0.0 as the next fancy
> thing. Assuming that is still the plan (which has not been otherwise
> changed), Sean's objection is reasonable. API changes definitely doesn't
> seem to be in scope for something that was to be a very minor "major"
> release.
> That being said, in my opinion, 2.0.0 seems quite a ways off still. I've
> started considering 1.7.0 to be another "normal" major release, rather than
> a "minor" one. If we're all in agreement here, I think it would make sense
> to apply our normal API rules to 1.7.0 and then make sure we minimize churn
> between 1.7.0 and 2.0.0 for any additions.
> Sean, is that an acceptable avenue to redirect this discussion? Have I
> missed any other sticking points? That the above wouldn't address?

Yes, that's reasonable.


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