On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote:
> -1 because I don't understand what is being proposed and it sounds like a > lot of other people do not either. > It would be nice if you could outline what you don't understand about the original proposal. > > It looks like we've had several proposed amendments to the original > proposal, but I am very unclear on if we are voting on any of them or if > they are simply brought up as nice discussion points. There's been so much > discussion in this VOTE thread (a strange complaint, I know) that I don't > have a clear picture of what is up for decision any more. > There has been so much negotiating and back and forth that I don't know > which amendments are part of the vote, which ones are intended to be a > follow on vote, and which ones are wild ideas that only a splinter group > supports. > I think votes should only be considered as for or against the original proposal, discussion can happen after someone votes. > > If we were to start a new vote on this, with all of the amendments rolled > in to the opening message, then I would be happy to reconsider. > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:59 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > John Vines wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Keith Turner<[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Josh Elser<[email protected] > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> John Vines wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Though I feel the biggest reasoning is our switch to semantic > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> versioning. And from semver.org, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API > > > changes > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Right and dropping deprecated APIs is an incompatible > change. > > > Do > > > > >>>>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> think > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> the following two rules are reasonable? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> * When API is deprecated, must offer replacement if > > feasible. > > > > >>>>>>> * Can only drop deprecated method when MAJOR version is > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> incremented > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> (there > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> are other proposed constraints on dropping deprecated > methods) > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> If we follow the above, then we can not deprecate current > API > > > > >>>>>>> before > > > > >>>>>>> introducing new API (because the replacement would not > exist > > > > >>>>>>> concurrently). Also we can not drop the current API in > 2.0.0 > > > if > > > > >>>>>>> its > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> not > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> deprecated. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> It is totally a reasonable statement for after 2.0.0. But for > > > 2.0.0 > > > > I > > > > >>>>> am > > > > >>>>> not okay making this guarantee because I would rather sacrifice > > > > >>>>> backward > > > > >>>>> compatibility for an API that isn't plagued by shortcomings of > > the > > > > old > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> API > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Again, this is the fear/concern of impacting the new API due to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> supporting > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> of the old which *may or may not even happen*. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Good point, we could adopt these rules now and never create a > new > > > > >>> API. I > > > > >>> think we would be better off adopting this now regardless of > wether > > > not > > > > >>> we > > > > >>> introduce a new API in the future. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Also, if we do eventually create an API. How is it user > unfriendly > > > to > > > > >>> have > > > > >>> the old API around in deprecated form? The deprecation markings > > > > clearly > > > > >>> communicate that someone writing new code should not use the old > > API. > > > > >>> However it still allows existing code that users invested time > into > > > > >>> writing > > > > >>> to run w/o issue against 2.0.0. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> I feel like I'm repeating myself. My concern is that the > > > implementation > > > > >> details of maintaining the 1.x API in deprecated form will have a > > > > negative > > > > >> impact on the 2.0 API due to implementation details. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, Keith, you misinterpreted what I meant -- let me try to > > > restate. I > > > > > am assuming that a new API will happen. > > > > > > > > > > What is only a possibility is that the old API implementation would > > > > > negatively affect the new API. John's concern is a hypothetical one > > > that > > > > > isn't based on any *actual* implementation details. He's assuming > > that > > > we > > > > > will hit some sort of roadblock which we would be unable to resolve > > in > > > a > > > > > desirable way (a way that would not negatively impact 2.0 API). > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying is that we should address those issues if and when > we > > > get > > > > > there. When we have context to a concrete problem, we can make a > > > decision > > > > > there about how to proceed. Meanwhile, we act under best-intentions > > to > > > > keep > > > > > the 1.0 APIs around. > > > > > > > > > > Do you get what I'm suggesting, John? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm totally okay with this. But that means no requirements about APIs > > > from > > > > 1.x to 2.0. I'd be comfortable with changing the verbiage to > something > > > that > > > > lessens to encourage effort to support deprecated APIs so long as > they > > > > don't influence 2.0 APIs. > > > > > > > > > > One thing to consider is that the proposal has language for making > > > exceptions, a majority vote. What are your thoughts on that language? > > > > > > > That's great they're adjustable. I'm not going to agree to language now > > that I currently disagree with, especially language that may be difficult > > to be amended. Not everyone seems to have an understanding of my concerns > > and the level of impact it has and that makes me question the ability to > > get a vote through to retract that portion of the language should it > arise. > > >
