Mailing-List: contact notifications-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jira@apache.org
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 17:40:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Sean Busbey (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12776533.1424463542000.4941.1428342012370@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12776533.1424463542000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12776533.1424463542000@Atlassian.JIRA>
 <JIRA.12776533.1424463542274@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Comment Edited] (ACCUMULO-3608) Restore backwards binary
 compatibility with version 1.6.z
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3608?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14481478#comment-14481478 ] 

Sean Busbey edited comment on ACCUMULO-3608 at 4/6/15 5:39 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------

we should only need to check the then-latest 1.6.z release, because 1.6.\{0,1,2,z\} are supposed to be backwards compatible with each other. IIRC, 1.6.1 -> 1.6.2 got the greenlight. Was there a gap from 1.6.0?


was (Author: busbey):
we should only need to check the then-latest 1.6.z release, because 1.6.{0,1,2,z} are supposed to be backwards compatible with each other. IIRC, 1.6.1 -> 1.6.2 got the greenlight. Was there a gap from 1.6.0?

> Restore backwards binary compatibility with version 1.6.z
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-3608
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3608
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.7.0
>            Reporter: Sean Busbey
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>         Attachments: compat_report.html
>
>
> We need to ensure that a check for binary backwards compatibility passes when comparing 1.6.z to current master, since it is only a minor version bump.
> {quote}
> That means new classes, interfaces,methods, enum members, etc are all fine. All of the things labelled as HIGH severity in the binary compatibility report are definitely a problem. They're mostly classes and methods that were removed.
> The end goal should be a report like the one Corey got for 1.6.1 -> 1.6.2. We don't need the reciprocal report to be compatible because minor versions need not be forward compatible.
> Problems in the source compatibility report are worth reviewing, but things that only show up there shouldn't be a blocker.
> {quote}
> There are instructions for running the compatibility checker in test/compat/japi-compliance/README


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)