Adding to above- I've been seeing the minor as the bugfix and the major as
the "new feature and possible API changes" version. I'm all for following
Maven's lead but what would that transition look like? Does that mean there
would be a 2.0 coming out soon?
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> bq. For instance, we could establish rules like...
>
> I thought these were already excepted practices. Have they not been
> formalized? Other than the backporting, haven't we been following all of
> those rules already?
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Michael Berman <mber...@sqrrl.com>wrote:
>
>> >
>> > No public API changes between minor and bugfix releases (API semantic
>> > changes are okay, if they fix a bug).
>> > Major features are incorporated into major releases.
>> > API compatibility is not guaranteed between major releases (deprecated
>> > methods can be dropped).
>> > Deprecated API must persist as deprecated through at least one major
>> > release before removing.
>> > Minor releases include changes and improvements to existing features,
>> > but not major new features or drastic changes.
>>
>>
>> +1 to all of that! It's really nice to know that I always want the latest
>> available o.o.X and that it's always totally safe to update to, and that
>> while things may have changed in the next o.X.o, at least I won't have to
>> make any major changes to my client code. Of course this implies that the
>> MSV should increment faster than if often does in these kinds of projects,
>> but I think that's ok. The longer you go without ever bumping the first
>> digit, the bigger the change seems like it needs to be to justify finally
>> doing so.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > You're right, historically, Accumulo has considered y = major, and z =
>> > minor/bugfix, by convention. This is because our iterative development
>> > process hasn't really lent itself to feature planning for releases.
>> > However, in the quoted thread, I was simply providing a definition of
>> > a term ("minor") when I used it, so that I could not possibly be
>> > misunderstood.
>> >
>> > However, since we're on the subject. we need to do better than our
>> > previous conventions for versioning... because we need to establish a
>> > better stability in our API contracts. Since not long after we
>> > switched to using Maven, in the early days of the code, we've at least
>> > tried to follow maven conventions, and the semantics of versioning is
>> > one of them. Following it (major.minor.bugfix) more strictly can help
>> > us make API compatibility guarantees that we can actually enforce, and
>> > can help with long-term support.
>> >
>> > For instance, we could establish rules like:
>> >
>> > No public API changes between minor and bugfix releases (API semantic
>> > changes are okay, if they fix a bug).
>> > Major features are incorporated into major releases.
>> > API compatibility is not guaranteed between major releases (deprecated
>> > methods can be dropped).
>> > Deprecated API must persist as deprecated through at least one major
>> > release before removing.
>> > Minor releases include changes and improvements to existing features,
>> > but not major new features or drastic changes.
>> >
>> > I can't say which specific rules we'd want to establish, but having
>> > some in place could definitely ease the conflicts between development
>> > of new features and support for old ones.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > On the feature freeze reminder thread, Chris said:
>> > >
>> > >> I don't mind putting things off to 1.7 (if necessary). But... if
>> 1.6.0
>> > >> isn't sufficiently feature rich, there's not really a reason to
>> > >> release it just yet... until those features are ready. That said, I
>> do
>> > >> think there'll be enough features in 1.6.0 to release it as a minor
>> > >> release, if we're interpreting the version as the standard
>> > >> <major>.<minor>.<bugfix> scheme, even if we end up pushing some stuff
>> > >> off to 1.7.
>> > >
>> > > I didn't want to derail that thread, but this does not line up with
>> what
>> > > I've seen in Accumulo. (Though I agree that it is a common numbering
>> > > scheme[1])
>> > >
>> > > The Accumulo release guide[2] doesn't specify how "minor" and "major"
>> > turn
>> > > into positions in the version number. However, the git workflow
>> guide[3]
>> > > does, and basically says that Accumulo uses
>> > >
>> > > x.y.z
>> > >
>> > > y = major
>> > > z = minor
>> > >
>> > > This also lines up with my understanding of previous Accumulo releases
>> > and
>> > > cross-compatibility amongst them.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [1]: http://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html
>> > > [2]: http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
>> > > [3]: http://accumulo.apache.org/git.html#release-management
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sean
>> >
>>
>
>
