By passivity do you mean backward compatibility ? Not all API's have same level of maturity, and the audience for them can also be different.
Public api's are supposed to be marked with the annotations under org.apache.hadoop.hive.common.classification.InterfaceAudience as Public, and the expectations regarding backward compatibility set using InterfaceStability annotations. For example, the UDF apis should be marked as @Public and @Stable. However, api's for new functionality might be marked @unstable or @evolving. On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:19 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com <kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com> wrote: > While reviewing some of the recent patches, I came across a few with > non-passive changes and or discussion around them. I was wondering what > kind of passivity guarantees should we provide to our consumers? I > understand that Hive API is probably not as widely used as some of its > peers in the ecosystem like HBase. But should that be something we should > start thinking on especially around user facing interfaces like UDFs, > SerDes, StorageHandlers etc? More so given that we are 1.0 now? > IMO we should avoid doing any of such changes and/or if we have to do so > with a major version bump for the next release. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Swarnim
