/me snickers and points to Josh...
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Josh Elser wrote: >> >> Sean Busbey wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This vote fails, with: >>>> >>>> -1: Mike, Sean, John >>>> +1: Christopher, Keith >>>> >>>> Even without my implicit +1, or Bill and Josh's late -1's, the vote >>>> still >>>> fails. >>>> >>>> I think it would help if each person voting -1 (for reasons other >>>> than the >>>> fact that there is disagreement or the thread was confusing or >>>> difficult to >>>> follow), would please reply with a very short and concise summary of >>>> what >>>> guidelines they think we *should* adopt. >>>> >>> >>> The compromise proposed by Josh that works for me is the original with >>> the >>> addition of >>> >>> * No client RPC removals or change in behavior of extant calls prior >>> to 2.0 >>> (non-inclusive or inclusive doesn't matter to me) >>> * Documenting the above in release notes for 1.x by way of tests that >>> clients compiled with 1.6 work when talking to a cluster running the >>> newer >>> release >>> >> >> Thanks *so* much for the clarity here. This greatly helps. >> >> The only thing that is a concern about testing of 1.6 clients against >> the newer release. Are you signing up to do said testing? If you fall >> off a bridge/get sick/etc, I don't want all newer releases to be blocked >> until another community member volunteers or you are free to work on it. >> Is that reasonable? > > > Actually, I also (embarrassingly) don't know the compromise that I proposed > which you're referring to. If you can re-copy that for clarity, that'd be > wonderful.
