I am a strong proponent of deciding on something and starting it now, whatever that may be. The status quo is not working as it has not been voted on and the rules are not very clear. The discussions over the past few weeks are a good example of this. I think deciding on something will answer a lot of questions that have been left unanswered. Backporting features, api compatibility, deprecation, etc. If that means we rename 1.7 to make it easier, so be it.
The only thing preventing us from adopting a new standard is ourselves. Also, regarding abandoning the current API in favor of a new one is, IMO, not a wise choice. I imagine a total of zero users in our userbase wanting us to force them to rewrite their code. It will lead to a lot of backport requests for people that want/need new features but cant upgrade. If we go down that route I would hope we let the users vote. <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Josh Elser <[email protected]> </div><div>Date:12/06/2014 4:05 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: [email protected] </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning </div><div> </div>Ah, I was speaking more to the initial discussion on 3176 [1]. 1.7.0 is already a major release though (given our current versioning) which would allow all of the current new features it has (good point on durability, I forgot about that one). Renaming 1.7.0 to 2.0.0 would also let us concurrently adopt semver properly. I don't think we *have* to change 1.7 to not be clear to users about compatibility, but doing so could be a good first step in a better compat statement (IMO). Is that what you ultimately want to see here? I'm not positive if I'm just talking past you or if we're working towards something. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201412.mbox/%3CCAOyNEs6E%3DkGDyC_NOfnqNitSdnJ%2BYcBtg9AuYJ1BC%2BoexwHDVw%40mail.gmail.com%3E [email protected] wrote: > Sorry, I don't see recent discussions[1,2] as pushing for increased > compatibility guarantees. Regarding digits in the version number, change 1.7 > to 2.0 and it's done. That actually falls in line with what is stated on the > release page, as it says that major features will be in a major release. IMO, > replication is a major feature. Durability could be also. > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201412.mbox/%3CCADczPYRW-WnSnSd5YHm7cD%2BZR6WB7LM9F8uiMbDnzn2vben%2Bpg%40mail.gmail.com%3E > [2] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201412.mbox/%3CCADczPYTYwftJt%3D6FC8a_-cAL0hd6ZZx%3D9OznPnG6afuQjuKwUQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Elser [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 2:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning > > [email protected] wrote: >> From what I remember in the previous discussions on this topic, there was >> some confusion as to what our current numbering scheme actually means. If we >> can't agree on it, then our users have no guarantees. Semver, or whatever we >> agree on, is a contract between each of us, and also between us and our >> users. Users will know the differences between our versions and we will have >> guidance on where we are allowed to put changes. > > AFAIK, we are very clear in what our versioning means. From > http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html: > > <snip> > The intent is for all major features to be implemented in a major release, > with only bug fixes and minor features being included in minor releases. API > changes should only be made on major releases, with continued support of the > previous API for at least one major revision. > This will give user code a major revision to convert from the old API to the > new API. > </snip> > > The recent discussions have been pushes for *increased* compatibility > guarantees over what we currently have in writing. > >> IMO, version numbers mean something. I personally don't care what the >> version number is, but depending on which digit is different between the >> version I am using and the current version number, I know whether or not I >> need to change my code. > > Right. My point was, if we adopt semver for 1.x, we don't have enough digits > to define bugfix, minor and major releases. > >> Some of us seem hung up on version 2.0 for a new client api. Why? How long >> will it take to define and agree on an api, then develop it and test it. >> What does that mean for features that are ready to go in the mean time? >> There is no reason that a new client api cannot be released in versions 3, >> 4, 5, or later. Likewise, there is no reason that we can't release master as >> 2.0 right now and remove things that are already deprecated (Aggregator) and >> include new major features (replication). > > You use "hung up", but that's what we agreed on for the upcoming releases > (replication+htrace already in 1.7, new client API in 2.0). If we want to > change that, we should just decide to. This seems to be a likely decision to > make. > >> I see no issue with changing the numbering now, especially since we there >> is no agreement on what it means. It leads to discussions like the one in >> the 3176 thread. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Josh Elser [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 1:43 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning >> >> Personally, I'm worried that trying to apply semver on top of 1.x as a whole >> is going to lead to more problems because we don't have 3 version "bits" to >> play with like semver expects. That was a big reason why we were going to >> align semver with 2.0.0 in the first place, IIRC. >> >> [email protected] wrote: >>> Christopher had asked for informal votes on, "releases [+1]: start >>> operating under whatever rules we adopt as of the master branch," which to >>> me means if we approve we adopt immediately. IMO, putting off this decision >>> is hurting us, see the other threads over the past week. I don't believe >>> that adopting semver now and applying it to 1.6.x and beyond hurts us in >>> any way. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Vines [mailto:[email protected]] Sent:Saturday, December >>> 06, >>> 2014 1:19 PM >>> To: Accumulo Dev List >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning >>> >>> I think there's an issue with this course of discussion because we're >>> discussion issues of our current 1.x release style while also discussion >>> Semver, both of which are incongruent with one another. Perhaps we need to >>> segregate adopting semver for 2.0.0 (which is waht I assumed), vs. adopting >>> semver for our next release vs. adopting semver for some release after the >>> next but before 2.0.0? >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 1:16 PM,<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> " This basically represents a goal to not to add new APIs without >>>>> bumping the minor release." >>>>> >>>>> I didn't think that with semver you could change the API in a >>>>> patch release. An API change, if backwards compatible, requires a >>>>> new MINOR release. Am I reading 6, 7, 8 and in the specification >>>>> incorrectly? I might need an example. >> Yeah, you're right, Dave. Just re-read this myself. There is no concern of >> how APIs are changed in a patch/bugfix release because they are disallowed >> by definition. >> >> The only way I would see this relevant is if we didn't adopt semver for this >> awkward [1.7.0,2.0.0) version range. >> >
