accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:36:10 GMT
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:00 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> Yes, I'm advocating for the freedom to drop undeprecated APIs in 2.0.0.
> This is not something I encourage but I think this is something we should
> have in our pocket just in case.
>

What do you think about the following?

  * API must be deprecated in 1.X release before it can be deprecated in
2.0.0
  * Introduce new API in 1.8 w/ old API in deprecated form
  * In 2.0.0 we drop old API

This way we do not have the long lived support tail for the old API that I
think is one of your concerns.  However this is still a nice bridge release
for users (one of my concerns).


>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > John Vines wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Keith Turner<keith@deenlo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>  On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Josh Elser<
> josh.elser@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>  John Vines wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>  Though I feel the biggest reasoning is our switch
to semantic
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> versioning. And from semver.org,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>   >
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>   >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>   >       1. MAJOR version when
you make incompatible API
> > > > changes
> > > > > >>>>>>>>   >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>   >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>   >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>   Right and dropping deprecated APIs
is an incompatible
> > change.
> > > > Do
> > > > > >>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> think
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>   the following two rules are reasonable?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>     * When API is deprecated, must offer
replacement if
> > > feasible.
> > > > > >>>>>>>     * Can only drop deprecated method
when MAJOR version is
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> incremented
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> (there
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>    are other proposed constraints on dropping
deprecated
> > methods)
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>   If we follow the above, then we can
not deprecate current
> > API
> > > > > >>>>>>> before
> > > > > >>>>>>>   introducing new API (because the replacement
would not
> > exist
> > > > > >>>>>>>   concurrently).  Also we can not drop
the current API in
> > 2.0.0
> > > > if
> > > > > >>>>>>> its
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>   deprecated.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> It is totally a reasonable statement for
after 2.0.0. But
> for
> > > > 2.0.0
> > > > > I
> > > > > >>>>> am
> > > > > >>>>> not okay making this guarantee because I would
rather
> sacrifice
> > > > > >>>>> backward
> > > > > >>>>> compatibility for an API that isn't plagued
by shortcomings
> of
> > > the
> > > > > old
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>> API
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Again, this is the fear/concern of impacting the
new API due
> to
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> supporting
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> of the old which *may or may not even happen*.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>  Good point, we could adopt these rules now and
never create a
> > new
> > > > > >>> API.  I
> > > > > >>> think we would be better off adopting this now regardless
of
> > wether
> > > > not
> > > > > >>> we
> > > > > >>> introduce a new API in the future.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Also, if we do eventually create an API.  How is it
user
> > unfriendly
> > > > to
> > > > > >>> have
> > > > > >>> the old API around in deprecated form?  The deprecation
> markings
> > > > > clearly
> > > > > >>> communicate that someone writing new code should not
use the
> old
> > > API.
> > > > > >>> However it still allows existing code that users invested
time
> > into
> > > > > >>> writing
> > > > > >>> to run w/o issue against 2.0.0.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> I feel like I'm repeating myself. My concern is that the
> > > > implementation
> > > > > >> details of maintaining the 1.x API in deprecated form will
have
> a
> > > > > negative
> > > > > >> impact on the 2.0 API due to implementation details.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, Keith, you misinterpreted what I meant -- let me try
to
> > > > restate. I
> > > > > > am assuming that a new API will happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is only a possibility is that the old API implementation
> would
> > > > > > negatively affect the new API. John's concern is a hypothetical
> one
> > > > that
> > > > > > isn't based on any *actual* implementation details. He's assuming
> > > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > will hit some sort of roadblock which we would be unable to
> resolve
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > desirable way (a way that would not negatively impact 2.0 API).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I'm saying is that we should address those issues if and
> when
> > we
> > > > get
> > > > > > there. When we have context to a concrete problem, we can make
a
> > > > decision
> > > > > > there about how to proceed. Meanwhile, we act under
> best-intentions
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > the 1.0 APIs around.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you get what I'm suggesting, John?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > I'm totally okay with this. But that means no requirements about
> APIs
> > > > from
> > > > > 1.x to 2.0. I'd be comfortable with changing the verbiage to
> > something
> > > > that
> > > > > lessens to encourage effort to support deprecated APIs so long as
> > they
> > > > > don't influence 2.0 APIs.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One thing to consider is that the proposal has language for making
> > > > exceptions, a majority vote. What are your thoughts on that language?
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's great they're adjustable. I'm not going to agree to language now
> > > that I currently disagree with, especially language that may be
> difficult
> > >
> >
> > What language would you like to see?  AFAICT you are advocating that any
> > committer should be able to freely drop undeprecated APIs in 2.0.0?
> >
> >
> > > to be amended. Not everyone seems to have an understanding of my
> concerns
> > > and the level of impact it has and that makes me question the ability
> to
> > > get a vote through to retract that portion of the language should it
> > arise.
> > >
> >
>

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