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 Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:35:08 GMT
The version name has nothing to do with when we remove deprecated APIs...
only what we call it when we do.
I agree that removing undeprecated APIs is a nonstarter.


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:

> So I feel the opposite.  I think we shouldn't remove deprecated APIs
> unless they absolutely break the system.  I think removing any
> undeprecated APIs is a non-starter.
> As a person who has to oversee hundreds of Accumulo instances with many
> users writing many programs,
> I really want to be able to upgrade my Accumulo instances without
> having to worry about breaking my users programs.  Every time any function
> is removed that means I am stuck supporting that version of Accumulo
> forever and having systems that can never be upgraded.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:36:10PM -0500, Keith Turner wrote:
> > 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