On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think a major version increment is when we've allowed ourselves leeway to > make breaking changes. If we were to do this though I'd like to see us roll > in as many as we can at once. > > Agreed. I suppose I'm opening the flood gates so bring on your CP changes in time for 2.0! > By the way, we are still sometimes breaking CPs without meaning to. I think > we messed up the RpcScheduler LimitedPrivate interface in 1.2 with > HBASE-15146, which added a return type to RpcScheduler#dispatch, and breaks > Phoenix. Would you lot be interested in setting up a Jenkins job that uses > Phoenix to watch for accidental breakage? It's not comprehensive of course > but might be the closest available thing to it. > > Probably no harm. Phoenix would be the canary. As long as someone looks at it though? It'd be branch-1 job? St.Ack > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We cool w/ this? > > > > (I know we keep saying it over and over again that its fine to break CPs > > w/o deprecation but still uneasy doing the actual breakage.... hence the > > note here.) > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
