I believe I've explained it in detail. For 2.0 we have not had any sort of hard requirement for API compatibility and the language in this vote changes that. My original response explained this in more detail in my original explanation.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:28 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I stand by my -1. This vote would guarantee a level of API compatibility >> that I don't think we should be held to. >> > > Can you give some some specific reasons for your -1? > > >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >
