On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > I believe that's a level of compatibility we haven't had in the past. > Are > > > we sure we want to restrict ourselves like that? > > > > > > > I think its a good goal that causes less confusion over time. It > certainly > > does not have to be a hard and fast rule. I think API changes in bug fix > > release should have a strong justification. > > > > > > I agree in principle, however when we only have major and bugfix versions > something like this introduces another pressure to churn the major version > number. > > I'm not generally one to worry about running out of numbers, but I do worry > about giving our users versioning fatigue. I also worry about the > maintenance overhead for devs; we still don't have any lifecycle plan for > major versions. > > All-in-all, I think this comes back to the deeper discussion about what we > intend version number changes in Accumulo to signal. This general topic has > come up a few times, and we should probably get to a point where we have it > resolved. > > Is now a good time for that discussion? Does it need to wait until > post-1.6.0? > Discussing after 1.6.0 would be good for me. > > > -- > Sean >
