It also appears that what was predicted at the end of [1] has come true. Kudos to Christopher for predicting the future. Have any lotto numbers in mind?
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201404.mbox/%3CCAL5zq9aPieiDH%2BEkYLpjAu_RYRjAJ8n_ziH6jhzQvNE8XyNVAQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201404.mbox/ajax/%3CCAL5zq9a8J6SXrUfsJsU9CB163%3D1QJgfurCKeLAj_GNTJW5hJuQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E ----- Original Message ----- From: dlmar...@comcast.net To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:37:48 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0 It seems that we already had this discussion[1] and a conclusion[2]. No vote though. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201410.mbox/%3ccal5zq9ah+g+omqr_p5e09cwyue0k2ztvoj10h+grikovhe+...@mail.gmail.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201410.mbox/%3CCAL5zq9aaiCCO%2B%2BtwkKzNzw_xpjTQtPj%3DV%3DrEFUDR-eKoSAHBuQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Turner" <ke...@deenlo.com> To: "Accumulo Dev List" <dev@accumulo.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:31:53 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0 On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > Following the conversation on the [VOTE] thread for ACCUMULO-3176, it seems > we require an explicit API guidelines at least for 1.7.0 and later until > 2.0.0. > > I hereby propose we adopt the following guidelines for future releases (if > we produce any such releases) until 2.0.0: > > API additions are permitted in "major" 1.x releases (1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, > etc.). > API should be forwards and backwards compatible within a 1.x release (no > new additions to the API in a "bugfix" release; e.g. 1.7.1). > New API in 1.7.0 and later 1.x releases will not be removed in 2.0 (though > they may be deprecated in 2.0 and subject to removal in 3.0). > Existing API in 1.7.0 will be preserved through 2.0, and should only be > subject to removal if it was already deprecated prior to 1.7.0 (though they > may be deprecated in 2.0 and subject to removal in 3.0). > -1 For the reason I stated earlier. I think we are setting ourselves to waste time in the future debating this by not making a more firm decision now about which deprecated methods will be dropped. In the earlier email I listed two options, are there other options? > > The purpose of these guidelines are to ensure the ability to add additional > functionality and evolve API naturally, while minimizing API disruptions to > the user base, in the interim before 2.0.0 when we can formally adopt an > API/versioning policy. > > Exceptions to these guidelines should be subject to a majority vote, on a > case-by-case basis. > > Because these relate to release planning, this vote will be subject to > majority vote, in accordance with our bylaws pertaining to release planning > and voting, and will be open for 3 days, concluding at 2000 on 5 Dec 2014 > UTC. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >
