Mentors, Is there a common convention for usage of @Stable in Hadoop community?
Thks, Amol On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Yogi Devendra <[email protected]> wrote: > When to mark certain operator as @Stable is not clearly defined. > > Can we define some criteria for deciding when to consider operator as > @Stable? > > For example one criteria could be, if operator is running for >1 year in > production environment for some user. Can we come with some strategy like > this? > [It would be difficult for an open source project to track which user is > using which operators. So, above strategy may not work. ] > > ~ Yogi > > On 14 December 2015 at 05:42, Timothy Farkas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > On Dec 13, 2015 4:08 PM, "Chandni Singh" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > In Malhar there are relatively smaller number of operators that we > use > > in > > > our demo applications, customer applications, POCs etc that are mature. > > > > > > The library is cluttered with operators especially in lib/util, > lib/algo, > > > lib/math packages which can be cleaned up by either removing them or > > > improving them but that breaks semantic versioning. > > > > > > When we add new operators/utilities it takes certain time for them to > > > mature. Japicmp doesn't help because it doesn't honor @Evolving > @Unstable > > > annotations for now. > > > > > > I wanted to propose that we add an annotation, let's say, re-use > hadoop's > > > @Stable and mark the operators which are stable with it and perform > > semver > > > check on just these operators. > > > > > > The 0.7.0 version of japi cmp has the support for inclusions (as well > as > > > exclusions) based on annotations. > > > > > > Here is the info: > > > https://github.com/siom79/japicmp/issues/88 > > > > > > The reason I am inclined to the inclusion approach is that there are > > > relatively smaller number of operators which IMO are stable. A lot of > > them > > > aren't. > > > So instead of going and marking so many as Evolving, we will mark > > > relatively few of them as stable. > > > > > > Also new development can be facilitated by this. We wouldn't have to > add > > > @Evolving to everything which is new. Instead we will mark it @Stable > > when > > > it is. > > > > > > Please let me know what you think? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chandni > > > > > >
