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 20:56:30 GMT
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