Actually while working on HBSE-11425 (Off heaping read path), came in a need for a change in a CP hook and I went with deprecation model there. The old one is deprecated and new one is added. I think the deprecated one can be removed now.. postScannerFilterRow(ObserverContext<RegionCoprocessorEnvironment>, InternalScanner, byte[], int, short, boolean) - Deprecated postScannerFilterRow(ObserverContext<RegionCoprocessorEnvironment>, InternalScanner, Cell, boolean)
Will do -Anoop- On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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? >> >> > Yeah, it would run against branch-1. > > Let me ask over on dev@phoenix if they want to set up and tend the job. > Failure mails would come over to builds@hbase though. I'd ask them to copy > me because I can't handle builds@ traffic but would be specifically > interested in Phoenix breakage. Sound reasonable? > > > > >> 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 >> > > >>
