Thanks everyone for chiming in. I created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10896 as a 2.5 blocker.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Chris Nauroth cnaur...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
+1 for the proposal.
I believe stating that classes without annotations are implicitly private
is
+1 for the proposal.
I believe stating that classes without annotations are implicitly private
is consistent with what we publish for our JavaDocs.
IncludePublicAnnotationsStandardDoclet, used in the root pom.xml, filters
out classes that don't explicitly have the Public annotation.
Chris
I think that's a reasonable proposal as long as we understand it changes
the burden from finding all the things that should be marked @Private to
finding all the things that should be marked @Public. As Tom Graves
pointed out in an earlier discussion about @LimitedPrivate, it may be
impossible
Fair points, Jason.
The fact that we include this in the compatibility guideline should not
affect how developers go about this. We should still strive to annotate
every new class we add, and reviewers should continue to check for them.
However, in case we miss annotations, we won't be burdened
Hi devs
As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them that
are not annotated at all. This is seldom intentional. Avoiding incompatible
changes to all these classes can be considerable baggage.
I was wondering if we should add an explicit disclaimer in our
compatibility
That policy makes sense to me. We should still label things @Private of
course so that it can be reflected in the documentation.
-Sandy
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com
wrote:
Hi devs
As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them
