Very good idea! Should we already start thinking about automatic tests for backwards compatibility of the API?
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 at 10:56 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > +1, good idea. > > Regards > JB > > On 10/21/2016 02:21 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > > > In the Beam codebase, we’ve improved, rewritten, or deleted many APIs. > > While this has improved the model and gives us great freedom to > experiment, > > we are also causing churn on users authoring Beam libraries and > pipelines. > > > > To really kick off Beam as something users can depend on, we need to > > stabilize the Beam API. Stabilizing means a commitment to not making > > breaking changes -- except between major versions as per standard > semantic > > versioning. > > > > To get there, I’ve started a process for tracking these changes by > applying > > the `backward-incompatible` label [1] to the corresponding JIRA issues. > > Naturally, open `backward-incompatible` changes are “blocking issues” for > > the first stable release. (Or we’ll have to put them off for the next > major > > version!) > > > > So here are some requests for help: > > * Please review and appropriately label the components I skipped: > > runner-{apex, flink, gearpump, spark}, sdk-py. > > * Please proactively file JIRA issues for breaking API changes you still > > want to make, and label them. > > > > Thanks everyone! > > Dan > > > > > > [1] > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20backward-incompatible > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
