Since there was a discussion thread on this, I wanted to bring this up
on the list instead of just leaving a comment on the issue.
I just bisect'ed a failing MetaSplitIT[1] and found that the changes
introduced by bumping to 0.9.1 were what supposedly introduced them. The
thing that worries me is that putting this in 1.6.1 came with a "it's
compatible" guarantee, when, to be perfectly honest, it's obviously not
at the level of compatibility that we want it to be for a bug-fix
release (it broke a test).
Now, I haven't traced it back far enough to see what has exactly changed
with the exceptions (causing us to poll indefinitely instead of fail
back to the client), but that makes me worry that assumptions we have in
the implementation of our API, WRT exception handling, are suddenly invalid.
I'll try to poke around at this some more to figure it out exactly.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2935
On 5/23/14, 3:09 PM, Christopher wrote:
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
