Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jon@cloudera.com designates
 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1391492784.11817.YahooMailNeo@web140601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CA+RK=_C8=Cg450Gr+ZAQ54Fp3vEn-OWgV7Mg8iXFM6zTHZ3B6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1391492784.11817.YahooMailNeo@web140601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 14:46:45 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAAha9a0u73Sgpu_V47rj-h5Kkcr-KLESmR42G8EmC4dC4DJZUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Binary API compatibility is not a requirement for any 0.98
 release candidate
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>,
 lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>,
	Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5485b525dd32704f19c6b5e

--bcaec5485b525dd32704f19c6b5e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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

--bcaec5485b525dd32704f19c6b5e--