hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Removal of deprecated features
Date Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:31:46 GMT
How about an issue per module? Should end up being somewhere between those
two.

-- 
Sean
On Apr 7, 2015 7:21 AM, "Lars Francke" <lars.francke@gmail.com> wrote:

> Great, thanks everyone for your input.
>
> I started to go through the issues.
>
> I see two options: 1) One issue per "source" issue or 2) one issue per
> version.
>
> Examples:
> 1) Create new issues like this "Handle deprecations for HBASE-9870" and
> then attach two patches (one for branch-1 and one for master, documenting
> deprecation and removing them respectively). This would mean lots of small
> issues, easy to review, easy to keep updated, easy to commit. Collect them
> all in an umbrella issue.
>
> 2) Create a new issue "Document deprecations in branch-1" and another one
> "Remove deprecations for 2.0.0" with a big patch attached to each.
>
> I prefer version 1 even though it'd be a lot of small patches. Release
> notes could be per issue or collected in an umbrella issue.
>
> Any opinions? If I don't hear any I'll go ahead with that and will start
> filing.
>
> Cheers,
> Lars
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Lars Francke <lars.francke@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Lars. Any other opinions, any more input?
> > > >
> > > > If not I hope to have some time this week to work on these points:
> > > >
> > > > * In the master branch (which will be released as 2.0.0 if I'm not
> > > > mistaken) remove (or undeprecate if it turns out the functionality is
> > > > actually still needed) all functionality that was marked deprecated
> > prior
> > > > to 1.0.0
> > > > * Clarify that all deprecations that were added in 1.x will be
> removed
> > in
> > > > 3.0.0 (using JavaDoc and in the book)
> > > > * Clarify that all deprecations that were added in 2.x will be
> removed
> > in
> > > > 4.0.0 (using JavaDoc and in the book)
> > > > * Clarify the SemVer documentation with a different example
> > > >
> > > > I'd rather not do unnecessary or unwanted work :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > FWIW, this works for me. The lack of complaints leads me to believe it
> > > works for other PMCs. ;)
> > >
> > >
> > Works for me (though quiet, have been following closely -- as are others
> > I'd think).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Please make sure these removals have good release notes. Folks who know
> > > what their API usage looks like should have a heads up prior to
> > > recompiling. (I'm happy to help iterate on release notes once you get
> to
> > > that point.)
> > >
> > >
> > Good idea (umbrella issue to tie the efforts together).
> >
> > Thanks LarsF,
> > St.Ack
> >
>

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