Billie, Not to be glib, but it reads like your suggestion to Jeremy for when we have a 2.0.0 release (assuming semver passes) is to take option (2) Don't upgrade Accumulo.
Please correct my misunderstanding. Mike On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi <bil...@apache.org> wrote: > To clarify John's question: if our vote to adopt semver 2.0.0 passes, our > intention will be to no longer have breaking public API changes unless the > major version number is incremented, i.e. 1.x.x -> 2.x.x. An important > aspect of semantic versioning is defining what is considered part of the > public API. So if there are things you need to remain consistent that are > not covered by Section 9 of the README, we should discuss adding them. > Actually, strengthening what we consider to be the public API is likely to > be a separate conversation in which (I hope) we will engage the user list. > On Dec 11, 2014 11:51 AM, "John Vines" <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Wouldn't this be resolved with our SemVer sqwitch? > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Kepner, Jeremy - 0553 - MITLL < > > kep...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > When we remove functions, do we have any official guidance to our users > > > who may have built applications that use those functions? > > > > > > Right now, the official position is that the Accumulo developers can > > > remove based on a consensus vote. However, this provides no guidance to > > > users as to what they are suppose to do? As it stands, our guidance is > > that > > > they have the following choices: > > > > > > (0) Diligently watch the Accumulo e-mail list and aggressively weigh in > > on > > > any vote to remove functions that may impact them. > > > > > > (1) Find someone to modify the original source code of their > > applications, > > > build it, and *re-verify* the application. I emphasise the re-verify > > > because that is usually the most costly part of the process that often > > > won't get approved by management. > > > > > > (2) Don't upgrade Accumulo. > > > > > >
