Given this conversation, and because I can't really think of a good reason not to, I'm going to proceed with applying this to 1.6.1, after addressing the issues in RB. That satisfies my desire to make a 1.7.0 minor release down the road, and satisfies busbey's concerns about mixing versioning semantics in 1.x.x (by avoiding 1.x.0 minor releases)
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. They are 100% forward/backwards compatible on the wire. > > However, it is my understanding that there were some minor additions > (new API) to 0.9.1 which won't work in 0.9.0... but that won't affect > us since we are not using those features (and wouldn't be adding > anything that leverages those features in any bugfixes on 1.6.x), and > because we provide the jar. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: >> Do we know if thirft 0.9.0 and 0.9.1 are forward compatible? >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Correction: the current patch does *NOT* bump the wire version... I >>> thought I did that, but I did not. >>> >>> -- >>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Devs, >>> > >>> > I'm considering whether or not it'd be appropriate to push in >>> > ACCUMULO-1691 into the 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT branch. >>> > This would effectively bump our dependency on libthrift to 0.9.1. >>> > However, thrift 0.9.1 and 0.9.0 are 100% wire-compatible (I've been >>> > assured by jfarrell and codesf in the #thrift IRC channel). >>> > >>> > Given that this we provide this dependency, and the bump would fix >>> > some thrift bugs, and that Thrift's own API is backwards-compatible in >>> > this version, I don't think this would impact our community except in >>> > the positive. >>> > >>> > (Note: currently, my patch for ACCUMULO-1691 bumps up the wire >>> > version, but I plan on changing that so it doesn't, now that I've been >>> > assured it is compatible... I've also done some manual tests to verify >>> > this, and haven't seen any issues across our tests, even without >>> > re-generating the thrift classes in ACCUMULO-2773; If I roll >>> > ACCUMULO-1691 in, I'd also include ACCUMULO-2773.) >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Christopher L Tubbs II >>> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sean
