On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Jiang <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the past, both HBASE-11425 and HBASE013645 used deprecation model, > HBASE-15296 now uses replacement model. > > Even we don't guarantee the compatibility of upgrading to 2.0. the > replacement model would make the upgrade more challenge and I am sure > enterprise customer would stay in 1.x line longer. > > My 2-cent is unless it is necessary (eg. no way to maintain it), we should > try hard to make upgrade easier and use the deprecation model. > > I've reopened HBASE-15296 to ask if the change can be made in a non-breaking way (I think not since we'd have to retain removed types). I could back out HBASE-15296 until there is more justification than 'cleanup' for breaking CP APIs. My sense is that by the time of 2.0, the breakage that HBASE-15296 does to the CP API will be minor in the scheme of things. St.Ack > Thanks > Stephen > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Great idea. > > > > > On Apr 14, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > We could also set up a job to run through the compat checking script > > > we have against Public and LimitedPrivate API nightly. > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:59 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. > > >> > > >> 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. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> 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) > > >
