I took a look at Christopher's commits for ACCUMULO-3197 and they all look fine to me. Any other reviewers may like to add "?w=1" to the URL for each commit to ignore whitespace-only changes in the view, e.g.:
https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/commit/dc1332b5fb5f358f3fff432a1a0fef4f56c1628e *?w=1* Going forward, it'd be nice to have a rule of thumb for how long a deprecated item will linger: some possibilities: - 2 minor releases or the next major release, whichever comes first - always until the next major release (this may make sense starting with 2.0.0) I like the idea of a tool to find use of deprecated calls; it appears that Eclipse and Sonar can do that: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14490021/scanning-code-base-for-use-of-deprecated-methods Overall, +1 to removing deprecations from 1.4 and earlier. Bill On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Adam Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So, I think we can make a general argument to set policy, and when > removing > > a specific method we should make a specific argument. Personally, I would > > set the bar at identifying the specific harm cause by the retention of > the > > method, as well as polling the community and considering objections. > > > > Christopher, you made an argument about people misunderstanding the > > semantics of the method and using it incorrectly. Is that not solved by > > just deprecating the method? > > > > > Clearly no, since mistakes are still occurring in 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT and it was > deprecated in 1.6.0. Further, it was hard to notice because: > > 1) it's the only way to currently get that information from the API to the > RPC layer (see ACCUMULO-3199) > (In my proposed commit[1], I offer a temporary workaround which involves > better naming, and limits the API to the ZooKeeperInstance only) > 2) the use of the method occurred in a somewhat badly named utility method > which suppressed deprecation warnings > > Until ACCUMULO-3199 is fixed to address the shortcoming of being able to > get the user-provided client RPC config to the RPC layer, this method is > going to be prone to abuse. > > [1] https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/commit/52806b6?diff=split > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > -- // Bill Havanki // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
