Jon, I find your "ship has sailed here" phrasing a bit odd because it was your changes to KV comparators that kicked off the original discussion on binary compatibility and, then, an agreement that binary API compat not be a criteria for 0.98 releases. Otherwise it would have been. :-)
> 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 >
