accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2014 18:30:20 GMT
I don't want to issue another vote right now, but I just (re-read) the
semantic versioning 2.0.0 document (, and I think we
should just go ahead and adopt it and start abiding by it.

In addition, I'd also like to ensure we provide some long-term stability
for deprecations. Semver only says we should have at least 1 minor release
with the deprecation documented. I think we should have at least one
(typically: exactly one) major release with the deprecation documented,
before breaking it in the next major release after that.

Also, Semver also does not say anything about forward-compatibility, but I
think we do probably want to ensure forward compatibility between "patch"
releases (aka "bugfix" releases), in addition to backwards-compatibility. I
don't think it would make sense to add forward-compatibility to "minor"
releases, though, because that would prevent adding non-breaking features,
and that's the explicit purpose of Semver's "minor" releases.

We've previously discussed versioning semantics, but never came to a
decision. I recall that there was some views that we should defer applying
these semantics until after 2.0 (that position was used to justify several
backports). However, given the stronger concerns more recently, regarding
API stability, it appears as though those views are different now, and
maybe we should just start applying this from 1.7 and forward.

Semver with these two additions (forward-compatibility for patch releases,
and longer-deprecation cycle), basically encompasses the guidelines that I
suggested in the last [VOTE] thread about what to do between 1.7.0 and
2.0.0, and also clarifies what I was thinking in terms of deprecations in
2.0. If we adopt this, that thread is essentially moot.

Thoughts? Are there any additions we'd like to see? Strong statements that
go beyond semver? Should we just vote on this?

Christopher L Tubbs II

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