On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't think we should shy away from breaking (binary API) changes until > 1.0. Then the expectations of a stable API kick in, so fix what need fixing > before. This was the rationale here. See the discussion around the time > the KV changes went in on dev@ and the issues themselves. Minor changes > like you point out are fine to commit to 0.98 branch ahead of the next RC > but aren't blocking issues for release. This has been well discussed. It > should not be surprising. We did not just "start the discussion". Changing > the rules in the middle is not fair to the RM. > > Thanks for putting the spotlight on BC Andrew and the reminder than once we call it 1.0, we are stuck. No harm minimizing pain we put on downstreamers so would be good putting back the minor diffs. I can write up a little section on binary compat story based off this thread. Will wait till we see what makes 0.98. St.Ack
