accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Medinets <david.medin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0
Date Tue, 09 Dec 2014 22:22:25 GMT
/me snickers and points to Josh...

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> Josh Elser wrote:
>>
>> Sean Busbey wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This vote fails, with:
>>>>
>>>> -1: Mike, Sean, John
>>>> +1: Christopher, Keith
>>>>
>>>> Even without my implicit +1, or Bill and Josh's late -1's, the vote
>>>> still
>>>> fails.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would help if each person voting -1 (for reasons other
>>>> than the
>>>> fact that there is disagreement or the thread was confusing or
>>>> difficult to
>>>> follow), would please reply with a very short and concise summary of
>>>> what
>>>> guidelines they think we *should* adopt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The compromise proposed by Josh that works for me is the original with
>>> the
>>> addition of
>>>
>>> * No client RPC removals or change in behavior of extant calls prior
>>> to 2.0
>>> (non-inclusive or inclusive doesn't matter to me)
>>> * Documenting the above in release notes for 1.x by way of tests that
>>> clients compiled with 1.6 work when talking to a cluster running the
>>> newer
>>> release
>>>
>>
>> Thanks *so* much for the clarity here. This greatly helps.
>>
>> The only thing that is a concern about testing of 1.6 clients against
>> the newer release. Are you signing up to do said testing? If you fall
>> off a bridge/get sick/etc, I don't want all newer releases to be blocked
>> until another community member volunteers or you are free to work on it.
>> Is that reasonable?
>
>
> Actually, I also (embarrassingly) don't know the compromise that I proposed
> which you're referring to. If you can re-copy that for clarity, that'd be
> wonderful.

Mime
View raw message