From dev-return-73873-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@hbase.apache.org Thu Apr 25 14:22:46 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 848ED180638 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:22:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 25354 invoked by uid 500); 25 Apr 2019 14:22:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 25338 invoked by uid 99); 25 Apr 2019 14:22:45 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:22:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7F854C24C2 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:22:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.799 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 68QX5yt-YHbx for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:22:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it1-f174.google.com (mail-it1-f174.google.com [209.85.166.174]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 52FAC5F4D0 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it1-f174.google.com with SMTP id k64so349493itb.5 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 07:22:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=p4IqCQkxvGhFfvzmpozxOVBsMqqUdi4xox8rRgjAAO0=; b=oEeSrxkneiJf2QCLrrBBFmlJt6KBQx2RQTHRYceILSCVK5MdPAnUjcKwP3n5tlfdwW 6TxfQs7yCR+4FxW6S9uJ/3vmmR63guB77TIPOmv/hq9OzRzqoRP5fABKaT4ddJhJvFKN 2klmY/QiYwjqsMYywRUix57X92NvTR1eMX4+RgyFEHQnXNPiYpEg6KK2M4gDozhFABB9 8egeyxXT6+Y3MbLoy8Bzp8ms+lpYHAMvN0XYSOeQbwenj6f2THJzepWoFRSgwRA3EX1m i8UTRICUpH2JAd1sh7TiqY/J7fYiqb1mWfNC1Fwg0rhwgFrSKxN4vKOdoUvMheMdkDqY /+5Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=p4IqCQkxvGhFfvzmpozxOVBsMqqUdi4xox8rRgjAAO0=; b=nRNrhXgjRwCmBlfLYbp2btylUWFD/pDIPCehSxFiBcxWDxD7PXskfK2oxNnbOFTdBd ps1i0DvCaaHAs6t+07Af4w4H8+NY5pOKFfTeZXkBT8WmxvN2Q0fcBYN50Tcdl4hVAw0b LkYNJUsikGtMRXAoHDUAhiImZs2pFOGItj7WXoPwv5PNm/tR5OWnJSRdvFZmVEIlGJHi k56LNkgLQpK1nSze5qFanjB+USAOdDGu1/Wx8p9KwkhY+K1MmnV8ZyhJVg+62t6Vbm2i 8Nw7DcbHTMivZDn+51cLMAf0TUA6hXcxOioEtFw0LhSvOdj+k0dLUCr9CURSgRwHxFnA b/fg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAURC81SQ+AhKG5hJsEZxLvT4/A+sPrvCDEPSAjsiOMuiGwAaFND MLLaKNnjABXfD7ib5XQNOi2z2evRQp5y316alnIXR+Ey X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzRHW/qb5H2zdQYnNX28+cYBODmEYKNV0AmmeWNHpL26BzMulN+Fe3i6mrx5DM432VM0lcTv2dHdkK1Bm8udZs= X-Received: by 2002:a24:c182:: with SMTP id e124mr3702304itg.177.1556202160905; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3CD05446-0686-46F7-A7C3-C4DC376D5EFA@ultratendency.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lars Francke Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:22:04 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Handling removal of deprecated methods and classes To: dev@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ffe52905875b8cd0" --000000000000ffe52905875b8cd0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:04 PM Zach York wrote: > Always good to see the history of the discussion :) It looks like nothing > really was decided last time (use caution if removing before a full major > version), hopefully we can come up with something more descriptive this > time. > Yeah, I followed through with the deprecations back then. From the tickets that Jan created, I believe most of them were added by me (I mean the descriptions on when each thing would be removed). What I did _not_ follow through on though (I must have forgotten) is to update the book to better explain how we understood the policy back then. Thank you, Jan for bringing this up again and working on removing those deprecations. It'd be great if we could fix it this time. I don't really have a strong opinion though. As far as I'm concerned I'm happy keeping things in for a whole major version (e.g things need to be deprecated in 2.0.0 so they can be removed in 3.0.0). If we want to remove a deprecation then that alone can be a good reason to do (or to speed up) a new major release. I'm very much against a time-based deprecation policy (I see that Sean already pointed out the same) as there can be 12 releases in 6 months or 0. I would also very much like to see deprecations being more important during reviews. In my opinion, a missing deprecation comment without a clear explanation should block a patch. It adds a lot of technical-debt and can be time-consuming to chase up the reason why something was deprecated. Cheers, Lars --000000000000ffe52905875b8cd0--