Sorry, I don't see recent discussions[1,2] as pushing for increased compatibility guarantees. Regarding digits in the version number, change 1.7 to 2.0 and it's done. That actually falls in line with what is stated on the release page, as it says that major features will be in a major release. IMO, replication is a major feature. Durability could be also.
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201412.mbox/%3CCADczPYRW-WnSnSd5YHm7cD%2BZR6WB7LM9F8uiMbDnzn2vben%2Bpg%40mail.gmail.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201412.mbox/%3CCADczPYTYwftJt%3D6FC8a_-cAL0hd6ZZx%3D9OznPnG6afuQjuKwUQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E -----Original Message----- From: Josh Elser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 2:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning [email protected] wrote: > From what I remember in the previous discussions on this topic, there was > some confusion as to what our current numbering scheme actually means. If we > can't agree on it, then our users have no guarantees. Semver, or whatever we > agree on, is a contract between each of us, and also between us and our > users. Users will know the differences between our versions and we will have > guidance on where we are allowed to put changes. AFAIK, we are very clear in what our versioning means. From http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html: <snip> The intent is for all major features to be implemented in a major release, with only bug fixes and minor features being included in minor releases. API changes should only be made on major releases, with continued support of the previous API for at least one major revision. This will give user code a major revision to convert from the old API to the new API. </snip> The recent discussions have been pushes for *increased* compatibility guarantees over what we currently have in writing. > IMO, version numbers mean something. I personally don't care what the version > number is, but depending on which digit is different between the version I am > using and the current version number, I know whether or not I need to change > my code. Right. My point was, if we adopt semver for 1.x, we don't have enough digits to define bugfix, minor and major releases. > Some of us seem hung up on version 2.0 for a new client api. Why? How long > will it take to define and agree on an api, then develop it and test it. What > does that mean for features that are ready to go in the mean time? There is > no reason that a new client api cannot be released in versions 3, 4, 5, or > later. Likewise, there is no reason that we can't release master as 2.0 right > now and remove things that are already deprecated (Aggregator) and include > new major features (replication). You use "hung up", but that's what we agreed on for the upcoming releases (replication+htrace already in 1.7, new client API in 2.0). If we want to change that, we should just decide to. This seems to be a likely decision to make. > I see no issue with changing the numbering now, especially since we there > is no agreement on what it means. It leads to discussions like the one in the > 3176 thread. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Elser [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 1:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning > > Personally, I'm worried that trying to apply semver on top of 1.x as a whole > is going to lead to more problems because we don't have 3 version "bits" to > play with like semver expects. That was a big reason why we were going to > align semver with 2.0.0 in the first place, IIRC. > > [email protected] wrote: >> Christopher had asked for informal votes on, "releases [+1]: start >> operating under whatever rules we adopt as of the master branch," which to >> me means if we approve we adopt immediately. IMO, putting off this decision >> is hurting us, see the other threads over the past week. I don't believe >> that adopting semver now and applying it to 1.6.x and beyond hurts us in any >> way. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Vines [mailto:[email protected]] Sent:Saturday, December >> 06, >> 2014 1:19 PM >> To: Accumulo Dev List >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Semantic Versioning >> >> I think there's an issue with this course of discussion because we're >> discussion issues of our current 1.x release style while also discussion >> Semver, both of which are incongruent with one another. Perhaps we need to >> segregate adopting semver for 2.0.0 (which is waht I assumed), vs. adopting >> semver for our next release vs. adopting semver for some release after the >> next but before 2.0.0? >> >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 1:16 PM,<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> " This basically represents a goal to not to add new APIs without >>>> bumping the minor release." >>>> >>>> I didn't think that with semver you could change the API in a >>>> patch release. An API change, if backwards compatible, requires a >>>> new MINOR release. Am I reading 6, 7, 8 and in the specification >>>> incorrectly? I might need an example. > > Yeah, you're right, Dave. Just re-read this myself. There is no concern of > how APIs are changed in a patch/bugfix release because they are disallowed by > definition. > > The only way I would see this relevant is if we didn't adopt semver for this > awkward [1.7.0,2.0.0) version range. >
