accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2014 23:16:58 GMT
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:18 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:07 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > -1 I do not like the idea of committing to 1.7.0-1.9.9... API additions
> > for
> > > the 2.0 API. We have already come to the consensus that 2.0 will break
> > the
> > > 1.x API which provides a lot of breathing room and freedom from old
> > > decisions. This causes this issue to come roaring back and an even
> larger
> > > amount of scrutiny to be required for all 1.7.0-1.9.9... API changes. I
> > > would go so far as to say an undefinable amount of scrutiny since we
> > still
> > > don't have solid foundation of a 2.0 API. We cannot judge API items for
> > how
> > > well they belong in an API that does not exist yet.
> > >
> > >
> > Honestly, I don't expect us to have any major 1.x releases after 1.7.x.
> > These guidelines would just add some minor protection, making 1.x a bit
> > more stable in the transition to 2.0 if we ever do have such releases.
> I'd
> > hate for a user to seamlessly migrate to 2.0 from 1.7, but not be able to
> > seamlessly migrate from a 1.8 to 2.0, because 1.8 dropped some 1.7 API.
> >
>
> This doesn't make any sense. I've been under the impression that there will
> not be a seamless migration to 2.0 from any release. I thought 2.0 was
> supposed to be a clean start of an API in order to prevent old method
> signatures from making a better, cleaner API. And with that, it means that
> migrating from 1.7 shouldn't make any different from 1.8. I expect there to
> be no necessity for any api in any version of 1.x to exist in 2.0,
> including those introduced in 1.999.0 if that's what it takes. Your
> statement specifies differently and that either means my bases for 2.0's
> API is false or your now introducing a new requirement to it.
>
>
>
We're not just going to drop the 1.x API. The core jar will still exist,
and contain all the old APIs (at least, that was my understanding). We
weren't going to throw out the window our normal practice of deprecating
APIs (I certainly had no intentions to do so). My understanding would be
that we would deprecate the old 1.x APIs in 2.0, and remove them in 3.0.

I've not even considered this as a "new requirement" for the new client
API... it's just the way we do things in this community (deprecate first,
remove later). The only difference would be that the version numbers would
actually mean something in terms of guarantees about when we remove those
deprecated methods. This is what I've consistently expressed in the
previous thread regarding ACCUMULO-3176.



> >
> >
> > > Tangential- I would like to see a clause about all current API items
> will
> > > not be removed (still could be deprecated) until 2.0.0, as I feel this
> > may
> > > ease some concerns about API alteration in 1.7+.
> > >
> > >
> > I believe I expressed that above, and only excluded things that were
> > deprecated prior to 1.7 (such as aggregators, which I expect to drop in
> > 2.0).
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Following the conversation on the [VOTE] thread for ACCUMULO-3176, it
> > > seems
> > > > we require an explicit API guidelines at least for 1.7.0 and later
> > until
> > > > 2.0.0.
> > > >
> > > > I hereby propose we adopt the following guidelines for future
> releases
> > > (if
> > > > we produce any such releases) until 2.0.0:
> > > >
> > > > API additions are permitted in "major" 1.x releases (1.7, 1.8, 1.9,
> > 1.10,
> > > > etc.).
> > > > API should be forwards and backwards compatible within a 1.x release
> > (no
> > > > new additions to the API in a "bugfix" release; e.g. 1.7.1).
> > > > New API in 1.7.0 and later 1.x releases will not be removed in 2.0
> > > (though
> > > > they may be deprecated in 2.0 and subject to removal in 3.0).
> > > > Existing API in 1.7.0 will be preserved through 2.0, and should only
> be
> > > > subject to removal if it was already deprecated prior to 1.7.0
> (though
> > > they
> > > > may be deprecated in 2.0 and subject to removal in 3.0).
> > > >
> > > > The purpose of these guidelines are to ensure the ability to add
> > > additional
> > > > functionality and evolve API naturally, while minimizing API
> > disruptions
> > > to
> > > > the user base, in the interim before 2.0.0 when we can formally adopt
> > an
> > > > API/versioning policy.
> > > >
> > > > Exceptions to these guidelines should be subject to a majority vote,
> > on a
> > > > case-by-case basis.
> > > >
> > > > Because these relate to release planning, this vote will be subject
> to
> > > > majority vote, in accordance with our bylaws pertaining to release
> > > planning
> > > > and voting, and will be open for 3 days, concluding at 2000 on 5 Dec
> > 2014
> > > > UTC.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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