hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Does compatibility between versions also mean binary compatibility?
Date Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:06:57 GMT
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For normal client-level API's, I am not convinced that we should keep
> > binary compatibility between major versions. It will tie our hands of
> doing
> > some changes between major versions.
> >
> I agree with this.  Once we go 1.0 I'd be more inclined to agree with
> restricting breaking changes like this.  However I think as long as we're
> wire compatible that gets most of what our users really want, while
> allowing flexibility in developing new versions.

This is basically the question I'm asking the beginning of this thread: we
said 0.92 and 0.94 were "compatible", so does that mean wire+binary or just
wire? Most seem to think that compatibility meant the former. The problem
here was that when we decided that those versions were compatible, we
didn't qualify it and didn't test for binary compatibility.

I'm good with Enis' major/minor version compatibility specs.


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