The other issue Alex reported doesn't need to be fixed because HTableDescriptor is marked @InterfaceStability.Evolving, right ?
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>wrote: > I am not arguing the minor patches in question. Put them in. What I am > saying is voting -1 on a release because of binary compatibility issues > misses the earlier discussion where the consensus was not to do that. > > > On Feb 4, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > Andrew, > > > > I basically agree with lars here -- the ship has sailed here. However, > there are some patches that restored binary compat in places committed to > 0.98 already. (IMO actually this would be an argument to fork earlier in > the future) > > > > I have some comments on HBASE-10460. Specifically it is on a class that > is @InterfaceAudience.Public and @InterfaceStability.Stable -- and I think > they fix there should get into 0.98. > > > > Jon. > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: > >> My $0.02... > >> > >> Wire (client-server and server-server) compatibility is a must have. > >> Binary compatibility should be a best effort. I.e. we shouldn't go out > of our way to break things, but if we want to clean up an API we should do > that. > >> So much for 0.98. > >> > >> Going forward... > >> > >> Once we go past version 1.0 and to semantic versioning this will need a > bigger discussion. > >> > >> As discussed in the past there are at least four angles here: > >> 1. Client-server wire compatibility > >> 2. Server-server wire compatibility > >> 3. Client binary compatibility > >> 4. Server interface binary compatibility (for coprocessors) > >> > >> #4 is surprisingly important as it basically turns into a #1 problem > when a project ships with coprocessors. > >> > >> Then we need to define compatibility rules for major/minor/patch > versions. > >> In the last PMC meeting we had a start on this. We need to finish the > details. > >> > >> -- Lars > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 3:08 PM > >> Subject: Binary API compatibility is not a requirement for any 0.98 > release candidate > >> > >> If you would like to change this consensus now, we can do so, and add > it as > >> a release criterion. That would require undoing the comparator cleanups > and > >> related breaking changes that went in as HBASE-9245 and subtasks. So > let's > >> not. I am -1 on making a change like this late in the day, after we have > >> already had two RCs and I am hoping to get a third out tomorrow. > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> > >> - Andy > >> > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > >> (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > -- > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > > >
