hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Binary API compatibility is not a requirement for any 0.98 release candidate
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:22:31 GMT
We need a new RC anyway it seems. I say we fix HBASE-10460 and the HTD
issues in the new RC and be at least do best effort thing. I guess we can
get both of these committed today.

Enis


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> The other issue Alex reported doesn't need to be fixed because
> HTableDescriptor is marked @InterfaceStability.Evolving, right ?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I am not arguing the minor patches in question. Put them in. What I am
> > saying is voting -1 on a release because of binary compatibility issues
> > misses the earlier discussion where the consensus was not to do that.
> >
> > > On Feb 4, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew,
> > >
> > > I basically agree with lars here -- the ship has sailed here. However,
> > there are some patches that restored binary compat in places committed to
> > 0.98 already.  (IMO actually this would be an argument to fork earlier in
> > the future)
> > >
> > > I have some comments on HBASE-10460.  Specifically it is on a class
> that
> > is @InterfaceAudience.Public and @InterfaceStability.Stable -- and I
> think
> > they fix there should get into 0.98.
> > >
> > > Jon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> My $0.02...
> > >>
> > >> Wire (client-server and server-server) compatibility is a must have.
> > >> Binary compatibility should be a best effort. I.e. we shouldn't go out
> > of our way to break things, but if we want to clean up an API we should
> do
> > that.
> > >> So much for 0.98.
> > >>
> > >> Going forward...
> > >>
> > >> Once we go past version 1.0 and to semantic versioning this will need
> a
> > bigger discussion.
> > >>
> > >> As discussed in the past there are at least four angles here:
> > >> 1. Client-server wire compatibility
> > >> 2. Server-server wire compatibility
> > >> 3. Client binary compatibility
> > >> 4. Server interface binary compatibility (for coprocessors)
> > >>
> > >> #4 is surprisingly important as it basically turns into a #1 problem
> > when a project ships with coprocessors.
> > >>
> > >> Then we need to define compatibility rules for major/minor/patch
> > versions.
> > >> In the last PMC meeting we had a start on this. We need to finish the
> > details.
> > >>
> > >> -- Lars
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > >> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > >> Cc:
> > >> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 3:08 PM
> > >> Subject: Binary API compatibility is not a requirement for any 0.98
> > release candidate
> > >>
> > >> If you would like to change this consensus now, we can do so, and add
> > it as
> > >> a release criterion. That would require undoing the comparator
> cleanups
> > and
> > >> related breaking changes that went in as HBASE-9245 and subtasks. So
> > let's
> > >> not. I am -1 on making a change like this late in the day, after we
> have
> > >> already had two RCs and I am hoping to get a third out tomorrow.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >>    - Andy
> > >>
> > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > >> (via Tom White)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > > // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
> > >
> >
>

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