accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ACCUMULO-3176
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2014 19:42:32 GMT
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Keith Turner <> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Sean Busbey <> wrote:
>> Responses below. I feel like most of these questions (with the noted
>> exception of details on my issue with one of the late compromise positions)
>> were previously answered, but I've tried to add additional detail below
>> where I may have been unclear in prior exchanges.
>> While I agree that objections are the start of a conversation, votes are
>> meant to be provide closure so the community can move on to other work. I'd
>> ask that we try to bring this thread to a close.

Whether that's healthy depends on the depth of disagreement remaining
on the topic, and whether the resolution here turns on a veto or not.

I do not personally believe that the PMC power to veto a commit is
appropriately applied over this sort of disagreement. The community
could choose to use a majority vote to amicably resolve a disagreement
about something like this.

However, I also must admit that I've never been very comfortable with
my ability to articulate the principles behind the writings of the
various very-old-timers on the subject of commit vetos. I suggest that
the PMC invite jimjag or Roy to expound, unless someone else here
feels that they've internalized the Apache conventions well enough to
explain them. At the same time, there's no absolute requirement, as
far as I know, for every community to adopt the voting policies of the
HTTP project; but if the project ends up in an unhappy place then the
board is prone, I suspect, to be unsympathetic.

Since I'm already out on a limb because I don't have time to follow
this in detail, I'm going to exit the conversation here.

>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Keith Turner <> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > The question I was most curious about was why you are ok w/ making this
>> API
>> > change in 2.0 but not 1.7.0.  I do not understand the reasoning behind
>> > this.
>> >
>> As a matter of background, over time I have become more convinced of the
>> need for a stable, coherent API. Too many of the end users I have seen
>> endure substantial work because of our altering of the API. This applies
>> equally for forwards and backwards compatibility. When someone has a
>> requirement to use our software and they find that the particular version
>> they need to integrate with is different than they initially expected, I
>> would like them to not have to endure project delays merely for updating
>> use of our API.
>> For 2.0, we already have broad consensus around improving our API in
>> ACCUMULO-2589 despite the cost it puts on our user base; both because of a
>> better delineation of what is and is not expected to stay constant and
>> because we'll have a better formulation of a lifecycle for Accumulo related
>> resources. In that particular matter, it's the proper lifecycle that I
>> personally find compelling enough to broadly cause a burden. This is
>> probably colored by my having dealt with ACCUMULO-2128 and its ilk.
>> So, given that we're going to be asking our users to deal with a headache
>> come 2.0 (which will hopefully be in the next 6-9 months) I would prefer to
>> minimize asking them to take on dealing with changes in versions prior to
>> that. There may be some future issue that fixes something severe enough to
>> warrant changing my position on the matter. This issue did not.
>> I talked previously about my position on API changes in general in the
>> background info for Josh’s message:
>> and I had meant to cover the "we already agreed to break things in 2.0"
>> side in this admittedly short offer of compromise:
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
>> > Explicit questions and outstanding requests for clarification since your
>> > last response (see previous emails for details and context):
>> > ->  So, are you arguing for no more API additions until 2.0?
>> >
>> My general preference, as mentioned above and previously in the background
>> info Josh asked for, is to avoid API changes prior to 2.0. I am not arguing
>> that this stance be taken on as a matter of course through this particular
>> vote.
>> I think any change to our API, prior to 2.0 or after, should be carefully
>> considered. How we plan for users to interact with our software over time
>> matters.  Through removals we will be directly impacting the ability of
>> operational users to adopt our newer versions. Through additions we will be
>> impacting how system integrators go about building applications above us.
>> It does neither us nor them any good for our API to change merely because
>> it improves our abstractions or condenses our support footprint.
>> In the consideration of the above and the nice-to-have fixes this
>> particular patch brings, I think it can wait for the API overhaul in 2.0.
>> The same two previous mailings I mentioned above to Keith are where I went
>> through this previously.
>> > -> Please address the fact that there is no breakage here...
>> -> Another reasonable compromise has also been proposed that seems to
>> address all of your concerns. Please explain why it does not.
>> I think these are the same question, presuming your "other compromise" is
>> the one of adding the new API and leaving the extant create methods
>> undeprecated. If not, please let me know what other compromise I missed so
>> that I can respond accordingly.
>> I covered the breakage part of this explicitly in my response to Keith's
>> question about which part of the API move I was concerned with:
>> Essentially, moving our table creation API to use a configuration object
>> instead of the myriad of different arguments is a shift in how we expect
>> users to interact with Accumulo. Even if the breakage doesn't happen right
>> now, this change is setting downstream users up for pain when the break
>> happens. To that same end, users attempting to proactively stay up to date
>> on our API will break if they have to move backwards. Yes, this a normal
>> part of API evolution. Yes, users will have to do this at some point. I'm
>> merely stating that we have already reached consensus on that point being
>> 2.0 and we should reserve using up the good will of our end users.
>> Similarly, simply expanding our API to have multiple long term ways of
>> doing table creation isn't tenable. For one, downstream users will ask
>> which method to use. Deprecation is how we normally offer them clear
>> guidance on where the API is going in the future. Without that, we'll just
>> be using some proxy for deprecation (either a javadoc or emails on user@).
>> Additionally, since the version that takes a single configuration object is
>> clearly the most sustainable approach, the other methods are likely to be
>> deprecated and then removed should we end up with additional major versions
>> prior to 2.0.
>> I covered some of this concern in my response to Brian in the first part of
>> my last response:
>> > -> Please explain how you see omitting this API addition is compatible
>> with
>> > [the goal of supporting non-major intermediate releases]. Please also
>> > explain why, if you consider 1.7 to be a major (expected) release, why
>> such
>> > an addition would not be appropriate, but would be appropriate for a
>> future
>> > major release (2.0).
>> I believe I covered this through a combination of the above explanations to
>> Keith and my response to Brian in the first part of my last response:
>> That we are having a 1.7 release at all is a matter of scheduling. There
>> are already too many things different in that development line for us to
>> release it as a follow on to 1.6 but not enough of our goals for 2.0 are
>> done to get that release out. That doesn't mean we should feel free to pack
>> as many breaking changes as we want into the release.
>> >
>> > Brian also asked:
>> > -> I don’t see what breakage users would be required to deal with if the
>> > proposed changes were made. A new method would be added to the API and
>> some
>> > existing methods deprecated (presumably to be removed in 2.0). So how
>> would
>> > this hurt our users?
>> >
>> I think this is covered above. In summary, when we alter our API we need to
>> consider long term impact rather than just the immediate release. We are
>> already going to ask our users to handle major changes in a relatively
>> short time period.
>> > -> Given that you are ok with with the change in 2.0, it seems that your
>> > objection is not to the content of the change but rather the timing of
>> it.
>> > Given that users aren’t required to use the new API method added by the
>> > change, this objection and the veto seem invalid to me. Am I missing
>> > something?
>> >
>> I believe the rest of this message restates in detail my concerns about our
>> API evolution and specifically why I am on board with the planned breakage
>> in the 2.0 release. Let me know where there are particular gaps so I can
>> help clarify.
>> Please everyone stop this divisive tactic of continuing to claim my veto is
>> invalid. The surface of our API and our impact on downstream users are
>> valid technical considerations. Our bylaws clearly state what is needed for
>> a veto to be sustained and I have already passed that bar. Let’s focus our
>> discussion on the underlying problem rather than technicalities of our
>> governance.
> You have raised some good points.  I think considering 1.7.0 API changes
> w.r.t 2.0 is a good thing to consider and discuss.   Drawing a line in the
> sand w/ a particular 1.7.0 API change doesn't really get us anywhere since
> there are already a few API changes in the 1.7 branch (what the heck is
> ACCUMULO-9998?)   Any strategy for this will need to be agreed upon by the
> community and consider the existing API changes.  A more positive way to do
> this would be to discuss a plan, write a proposal, and vote on it.
> $ git log --oneline -G 'ince\s+1.7.0'
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client
> e0fe2ae ACCUMULO-1957 test/whitespace cleanup
> c2d95a1 ACCUMULO-1957 implement per-session Durability
> f0a6718 ACCUMULO-9998 add waitForBalance API call
> baa7a4f ACCUMULO-2583 First stab at setting up the actual wire transfer to
> the replication peer
> Also I have had ACCUMULO-1798 up for review for a while and have not hear
> any complaints about API changes.   I wanted to finish ACCUMULO-3134 and
> put it up for review before committing 1798.
>> --
>> Sean

View raw message