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 yuzhihong@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3439909D-1F1B-4754-BB85-304AF6CD1CD3@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+RK=_C8=Cg450Gr+ZAQ54Fp3vEn-OWgV7Mg8iXFM6zTHZ3B6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1391492784.11817.YahooMailNeo@web140601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CAAha9a0u73Sgpu_V47rj-h5Kkcr-KLESmR42G8EmC4dC4DJZUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<63757E38-CAB8-4C7D-8854-83B77B3A3E32@gmail.com>
	<CALte62xg3K9G+PN0n39BA74yS0YaNGyWr+ywrB5TC+Gcb+wWbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMUu0w9LGz4m5Q4FvfsRc+=ZfnCFODK0_+YYySUS2d-Nwe3NkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<3439909D-1F1B-4754-BB85-304AF6CD1CD3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 17:02:02 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CALte62wHoryMPP8GfDSYxAKzpFtCFZLQH1f7WtqDAMbvke3thw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Binary API compatibility is not a requirement for any 0.98
 release candidate
From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Enis_S=F6ztutar?= <enis.soz@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>,
	Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d4000525f604f19e4e34

--001a11c1d4000525f604f19e4e34
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Patches for HBASE-10467 and HBASE-10460 have been checked in.

Cheers


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>wr=
ote:

> I was going to roll a new RC now that the tag compression fix was in. No
> problem to wait for these if they are going in today.
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Enis S=F6ztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 clas=
s
> 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 g=
o
> 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
> >> > >
> >> >
> >
>

--001a11c1d4000525f604f19e4e34--