Sounds fine to me.
My earlier objection was to talk of an HBase 3 followed by an HBase 4. We
don't need to do a full deprecation cycle across two major versions to
remove an annotation that never promised public access. (By definition,
tagged fields and members were VisibleForTesting (only). The 'only' was
implied, but I think a reasonable assumption and common knowledge.)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote:
> Agree on restoring the member and then getting this done for 2.4.0.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 15:02 Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > And now by module,
> >
> > $ find . -iname '*.java' -exec grep -n '@VisibleForTesting' {} \+ | cut
> -d/
> > -f2 | sort | uniq -c
> > 6 hbase-backup
> > 87 hbase-client
> > 40 hbase-common
> > 1 hbase-endpoint
> > 7 hbase-hadoop-compat
> > 3 hbase-http
> > 18 hbase-mapreduce
> > 1 hbase-metrics-api
> > 24 hbase-procedure
> > 10 hbase-replication
> > 456 hbase-server
> > 2 hbase-thrift
> > 1 hbase-zookeeper
> >
> > I prefer we not make this change a prerequisite to 2.3. I would rather we
> > restore the one method modified by HBASE-24221 and do the work for
> > VisibleForTesting for 2.4.0.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:57 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:36 PM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think we are in agreement except for a need to have a deprecation
> > cycle.
> > >> Just remove VisibleForTesting and replace with whatever alternative
> you
> > >> like. Certainly in the next minors. No strong opinion either way about
> > >> patch releases, leave as is?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Thanks Andrew and Bharath, I now better understand your positions.
> > >
> > > The annotation is fairly common in our codebase, from branch-2.3,
> > >
> > > $ find . -iname '*.java' -exec grep -n '@VisibleForTesting' {} \+ | wc
> -l
> > > 668
> > >
> > > I don't have an easy way to cross-reference this with our AI
> annotations,
> > > but my concern is that any change we make here without a deprecation
> > cycle
> > > will be disruptive to users.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:30 AM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:19 PM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > It is possible some users may not understand what Guava's
> > >> > VisibleForTesting
> > >> > > implies, but those users are much more likely to be Java
> developers
> > or
> > >> > Java
> > >> > > developer adjacent, and familiar with what this fad entailed. Such
> > >> > tagging
> > >> > > was/is done specifically to indicate the exposed field or method
> was
> > >> only
> > >> > > made to allow test access to internals, as something less than
> > public.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > For us to treat such annotated fields and methods as public after
> > all
> > >> is
> > >> > > unnecessary, possibly surprising, and not semantically sound
> (IMHO).
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't want to preserve use of VisibleForTesting as an indicator of
> > >> public
> > >> > API. I want to ensure that we're clear to our downstream users
> > >> > that its presence is not a factor in determining public API. For
> > >> example, I
> > >> > don't want to update our book to give any meaning to this
> annotation,
> > >> and I
> > >> > don't want to update our javadoc filters to take it into account
> when
> > >> > generating the various versions of javadoc that we publish. I want
> to
> > >> purge
> > >> > it from the discussion by annotating the methods it decorates with
> the
> > >> > symbols we do use to define our public API. The steps I propose
> above
> > >> are
> > >> > my suggestion of how we work toward that goal.
> > >> >
> > >> > Does anyone have a counter-proposal to the steps I've outlined
> above?
> > A
> > >> > resolution to this discussion is now the final blocker on 2.3.0rc1.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Nick
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:53 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Andrew are you specifically opposed to using a deprecation cycle
> > to
> > >> > > > formally label as private anything that currently has a
> > >> > VisibleForTesting
> > >> > > > annotation?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 16:07 Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I am -1 on treating VisibleForTesting as public API.
> > Semantically
> > >> it
> > >> > > > makes
> > >> > > > > no sense.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:22 PM Nick Dimiduk <
> > >> ndimi...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I'd like to get this [DISCUSS] wrapped up so we can proceed
> > with
> > >> > > > release
> > >> > > > > > candidates.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I don't see a clear consensus here. The conclusion I read is
> > >> that
> > >> > > > > > developers generally intended the VisibleForTesting
> annotation
> > >> to
> > >> > > > > indicate
> > >> > > > > > a method is not a part of our public API, but because we
> don't
> > >> > > > explicitly
> > >> > > > > > say this in our guide, we can't really stand on that for the
> > >> > > community.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I propose we take the following, conservative steps going
> > >> forward:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 1. restore any VisibleForTesting method signatures for
> 2.3.0,
> > >> treat
> > >> > > > this
> > >> > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > public API going forward.
> > >> > > > > > 2. annotate any existing methods carrying the
> > VisibleForTesting
> > >> > > > > annotation
> > >> > > > > > as Deprecated in 2.3.x+, for removal in 4.0.0
> > >> > > > > > 3. purge the VisibleForTesting annotation from our codebase
> > for
> > >> > > 4.0.0,
> > >> > > > > > involving:
> > >> > > > > > 3a. replace VisibleForTesting with IA.Private anywhere
> method
> > >> > > > visibility
> > >> > > > > > cannot be limited
> > >> > > > > > 3b. perhaps add a new Yetus check that would ban new use of
> > >> > > > > > VisibleForTesting
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Did I miss anything?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > Nick
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:22 AM Viraj Jasani <
> > >> vjas...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > +1 to "be clear in javadoc" and to the fact that guava
> > >> dependency
> > >> > > > just
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > express intention which can be done through javadoc is not
> > >> > > > > > > required unless the library is capable of breaking
> > >> compilation of
> > >> > > > > > > downstream
> > >> > > > > > > projects if they use VFT annotated classes/methods saying
> > you
> > >> > can't
> > >> > > > use
> > >> > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > (what if we have such fancy thing? :) ).
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On 2020/06/23 20:01:40, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > +1 to "do it in javadoc" unless there's some magic for
> > IDEs
> > >> > > brought
> > >> > > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > > via the VFT annotation that I'm missing.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 13:04 Andrew Purtell <
> > >> > apurt...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > I don't find the VisibleForTesting annotation
> provides a
> > >> lot
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > value.
> > >> > > > > > > It
> > >> > > > > > > > > became fashionable to use this annotation when a
> single
> > >> line
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > Javadoc
> > >> > > > > > > > > would serve the same purpose and not make yet another
> > >> > > dependency
> > >> > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > Guava.
> > >> > > > > > > > > My advice is to remove them all and replace with
> > Javadoc.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Even if in an IA.Public or LimitedPrivate we can
> > decorate
> > >> > > > > individual
> > >> > > > > > > > > field/methods that are public but not intended to be
> > part
> > >> of
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > public
> > >> > > > > > > > > portion of the API with a field or method level
> > IA.Private
> > >> > > > > > decoration.
> > >> > > > > > > It's
> > >> > > > > > > > > maybe not nice to do, but that would directly and
> > clearly
> > >> > > express
> > >> > > > > > > intent.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:15 AM Sean Busbey <
> > >> > > bus...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > I think the intent behind VisibleForTesting is
> clear:
> > >> the
> > >> > > > person
> > >> > > > > > > using
> > >> > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > > annotation does not intend for it to be used by
> > >> > > downstreamers.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > However, our stated API promises are in terms of the
> > >> > > Interface
> > >> > > > > > > Audience
> > >> > > > > > > > > > annotations only. So I think a downsteamer who e.g.
> > used
> > >> > > > > automated
> > >> > > > > > > > > tooling
> > >> > > > > > > > > > to ensure they only used things marked IA.Public
> would
> > >> be
> > >> > > > correct
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > > upset with us if we incompatibly changed an
> IA.Public
> > >> > member
> > >> > > > that
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > annotated VisibleForTesting.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Given that VisibleForTesting is in guava and we go
> to
> > >> pains
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > > > > exposing downstream to non-relocated guava I think
> it
> > >> would
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > bad
> > >> > > > > > > idea
> > >> > > > > > > > > > to use it when defining our public API.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > We should find places that use it, make sure they
> also
> > >> > carry
> > >> > > an
> > >> > > > > > > > > IA.Private
> > >> > > > > > > > > > if needed, and make sure our docs for developers are
> > >> clear
> > >> > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > > > > > annotations carry meaning for downstreamers (i.e.
> only
> > >> > > > Interface
> > >> > > > > > > Audience
> > >> > > > > > > > > > and Interface Stability).
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 11:29 Nick Dimiduk <
> > >> > > ndimi...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > My hope is that we can clarify our policy and
> update
> > >> the
> > >> > > book
> > >> > > > > > > > > > accordingly.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:01 AM Wellington
> > Chevreuil <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > wellington.chevre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the current problem, what is the class? I
> > >> think
> > >> > > > > changing
> > >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > method
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > signature for a protected method will only
> break
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > > compatibility
> > >> > > > > > > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > users extend the class.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > This specific case is
> > >> > > > > > *LoadIncrementalHFiles.tryAtomicRegionLoad,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > *mostly
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > an end user tool, not likely to be extended.
> Bring
> > >> back
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > original
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > method
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would not be much of an issue, though, I guess
> the
> > >> > > > discussion
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > how to interpret @VisibleForTesting in general.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Em ter., 23 de jun. de 2020 às 15:42, 张铎(Duo
> > Zhang)
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > palomino...@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > escreveu:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Technically, I do not think the developer who
> > >> makes a
> > >> > > > field
> > >> > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > method
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > public for an IA.Public class but marks it
> with
> > >> > > > > > > @VisibleForTesting,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > actually wants to expose this field or method
> to
> > >> end
> > >> > > > users.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But this could be a problem for end users, so
> I
> > >> think
> > >> > > we
> > >> > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > > > > avoid
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > doing
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > this on an IA.Public class in the future.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the current problem, what is the class? I
> > >> think
> > >> > > > > changing
> > >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > method
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > signature for a protected method will only
> break
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > > compatibility
> > >> > > > > > > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > users extend the class. In fact, most of the
> > >> classes
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > our
> > >> > > > > > > public
> > >> > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > not designed to be extended by end users.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wellington Chevreuil <
> > >> wellington.chevre...@gmail.com
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 于2020年6月23日周二
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 下午10:33写道：
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My opinion expressed on the 2.3.0RC0 thread
> > was
> > >> > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > @VisibleForTesting
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would flag class/method/variable as
> private. I
> > >> > > believe
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > annotation
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > label
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is pretty suggestive and (I also believe)
> it's
> > >> > common
> > >> > > > > sense
> > >> > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be treated as private by developers. I don't
> > >> think
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > fact
> > >> > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > omitted from our guidelines changes
> perception
> > >> of
> > >> > it.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Em ter., 23 de jun. de 2020 às 01:15,
> Bharath
> > >> > > > > Vissapragada
> > >> > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhara...@apache.org> escreveu:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I should've been clearer. It's the
> > >> former.
> > >> > > My
> > >> > > > > > point
> > >> > > > > > > is,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > method
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tagged with @VisibleForTesting is only
> > >> intended
> > >> > for
> > >> > > > > > testing
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > purposes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should _not_ be considered public, its
> > >> visibility
> > >> > > > scope
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > wider
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary only because it was needed by
> some
> > >> test
> > >> > > > > method.
> > >> > > > > > > > > That's
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpret it (Actually, that's what I
> > thought
> > >> you
> > >> > > > > meant,
> > >> > > > > > > now
> > >> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > confused
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-)).
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:02 PM Nick
> > Dimiduk <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > ndimi...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:45 PM Bharath
> > >> > > > Vissapragada
> > >> > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhara...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I share the same opinion. Infact
> hadoop
> > >> (from
> > >> > > > which
> > >> > > > > > our
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > annotations
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > derived I believe), talks about this,
> > >> "Also,
> > >> > > > > certain
> > >> > > > > > > APIs
> > >> > > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > annotated
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @VisibleForTesting (from
> > com.google.common
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .annotations.VisibleForTesting)
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - these are meant to be used strictly
> > for
> > >> > unit
> > >> > > > > tests
> > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > treated
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as “Private” APIs."
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r3.1.2/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/InterfaceClassification.html
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Bharath, I don't follow. Are you
> > >> saying
> > >> > "I
> > >> > > > > share
> > >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > opinion
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VisibleForTesting annotation should be
> > >> > considered
> > >> > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > defining a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > method
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IA.Private," and this is an omission
> from
> > >> our
> > >> > > > > community
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > document? Or are you saying "no, it does
> > not
> > >> > > count
> > >> > > > as
> > >> > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > interface
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > audience
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > marker," and we are obliged to treat
> > methods
> > >> > such
> > >> > > > as
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public API?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:15 AM Sean
> > >> Busbey <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > bus...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I would say no as well. We
> should
> > >> make
> > >> > > > clear
> > >> > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > our
> > >> > > > > > > > > > dev
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also should be marking those things
> > >> with an
> > >> > > > > > Interface
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Audience
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > marking
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't intend them to be at the
> > >> > downstream
> > >> > > > API
> > >> > > > > > > > > > visibility
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parent
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (IIRC we also use VisibleForTesting
> in
> > >> > > > IA.Private
> > >> > > > > > > classes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proactively
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain why some internal looking
> > >> member is
> > >> > > at
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > wider
> > >> > > > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > access
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scope.)
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 11:39 Nick
> > >> Dimiduk <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ndimi...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This came up over on the 2.3.0RC0
> > >> thread,
> > >> > > so
> > >> > > > > > let's
> > >> > > > > > > open
> > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proper
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion. In that context, we
> > >> observe
> > >> > > > method
> > >> > > > > > > > > signature
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > method marked with the Guava
> > >> > > > VisibleForTesting
> > >> > > > > > > > > > annotation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > method
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protected method on a IA.Public
> > class.
> > >> > > There
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > no
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > method-level
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IA
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > annotation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we consider the
> VisibleForTesting
> > >> > > > annotation
> > >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > specifier
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility guidelines?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am of the opinion that no, it is
> > >> not an
> > >> > > > > > > > > > InterfaceAudience
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > annotation,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so it is not applicable for
> defining
> > >> our
> > >> > > > public
> > >> > > > > > > API.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > > Andrew
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning
> > torn
> > >> > from
> > >> > > > > > truth's
> > >> > > > > > > > > decrepit hands
> > >> > > > > > > > > - A23, Crosstalk
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > Andrew
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> > >> > truth's
> > >> > > > > decrepit hands
> > >> > > > > - A23, Crosstalk
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Best regards,
> > >> > > Andrew
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> > truth's
> > >> > > decrepit hands
> > >> > > - A23, Crosstalk
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Andrew
> > >>
> > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > >> decrepit hands
> > >> - A23, Crosstalk
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk
