Does this information affect your vote?
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:18 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:07 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > -1 I do not like the idea of committing to 1.7.0-1.9.9... API >> additions >> > for >> > > the 2.0 API. We have already come to the consensus that 2.0 will break >> > the >> > > 1.x API which provides a lot of breathing room and freedom from old >> > > decisions. This causes this issue to come roaring back and an even >> larger >> > > amount of scrutiny to be required for all 1.7.0-1.9.9... API changes. >> I >> > > would go so far as to say an undefinable amount of scrutiny since we >> > still >> > > don't have solid foundation of a 2.0 API. We cannot judge API items >> for >> > how >> > > well they belong in an API that does not exist yet. >> > > >> > > >> > Honestly, I don't expect us to have any major 1.x releases after 1.7.x. >> > These guidelines would just add some minor protection, making 1.x a bit >> > more stable in the transition to 2.0 if we ever do have such releases. >> I'd >> > hate for a user to seamlessly migrate to 2.0 from 1.7, but not be able >> to >> > seamlessly migrate from a 1.8 to 2.0, because 1.8 dropped some 1.7 API. >> > >> >> This doesn't make any sense. I've been under the impression that there >> will >> not be a seamless migration to 2.0 from any release. I thought 2.0 was >> supposed to be a clean start of an API in order to prevent old method >> signatures from making a better, cleaner API. And with that, it means that >> migrating from 1.7 shouldn't make any different from 1.8. I expect there >> to >> be no necessity for any api in any version of 1.x to exist in 2.0, >> including those introduced in 1.999.0 if that's what it takes. Your >> statement specifies differently and that either means my bases for 2.0's >> API is false or your now introducing a new requirement to it. >> >> >> > We're not just going to drop the 1.x API. The core jar will still exist, > and contain all the old APIs (at least, that was my understanding). We > weren't going to throw out the window our normal practice of deprecating > APIs (I certainly had no intentions to do so). My understanding would be > that we would deprecate the old 1.x APIs in 2.0, and remove them in 3.0. > > I've not even considered this as a "new requirement" for the new client > API... it's just the way we do things in this community (deprecate first, > remove later). The only difference would be that the version numbers would > actually mean something in terms of guarantees about when we remove those > deprecated methods. This is what I've consistently expressed in the > previous thread regarding ACCUMULO-3176. > > > >> > >> > >> > > Tangential- I would like to see a clause about all current API items >> will >> > > not be removed (still could be deprecated) until 2.0.0, as I feel this >> > may >> > > ease some concerns about API alteration in 1.7+. >> > > >> > > >> > I believe I expressed that above, and only excluded things that were >> > deprecated prior to 1.7 (such as aggregators, which I expect to drop in >> > 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). >> > > > >> > > > 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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
