We need a new RC anyway it seems. I say we fix HBASE-10460 and the HTD issues in the new RC and be at least do best effort thing. I guess we can get both of these committed today.
Enis On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > The other issue Alex reported doesn't need to be fixed because > HTableDescriptor is marked @InterfaceStability.Evolving, right ? > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I am not arguing the minor patches in question. Put them in. What I am > > saying is voting -1 on a release because of binary compatibility issues > > misses the earlier discussion where the consensus was not to do that. > > > > > On Feb 4, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > > Andrew, > > > > > > I basically agree with lars here -- the ship has sailed here. However, > > there are some patches that restored binary compat in places committed to > > 0.98 already. (IMO actually this would be an argument to fork earlier in > > the future) > > > > > > I have some comments on HBASE-10460. Specifically it is on a class > that > > is @InterfaceAudience.Public and @InterfaceStability.Stable -- and I > think > > they fix there should get into 0.98. > > > > > > Jon. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> My $0.02... > > >> > > >> Wire (client-server and server-server) compatibility is a must have. > > >> Binary compatibility should be a best effort. I.e. we shouldn't go out > > of our way to break things, but if we want to clean up an API we should > do > > that. > > >> So much for 0.98. > > >> > > >> Going forward... > > >> > > >> Once we go past version 1.0 and to semantic versioning this will need > a > > bigger discussion. > > >> > > >> As discussed in the past there are at least four angles here: > > >> 1. Client-server wire compatibility > > >> 2. Server-server wire compatibility > > >> 3. Client binary compatibility > > >> 4. Server interface binary compatibility (for coprocessors) > > >> > > >> #4 is surprisingly important as it basically turns into a #1 problem > > when a project ships with coprocessors. > > >> > > >> Then we need to define compatibility rules for major/minor/patch > > versions. > > >> In the last PMC meeting we had a start on this. We need to finish the > > details. > > >> > > >> -- Lars > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > >> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > > >> Cc: > > >> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 3:08 PM > > >> Subject: Binary API compatibility is not a requirement for any 0.98 > > release candidate > > >> > > >> If you would like to change this consensus now, we can do so, and add > > it as > > >> a release criterion. That would require undoing the comparator > cleanups > > and > > >> related breaking changes that went in as HBASE-9245 and subtasks. So > > let's > > >> not. I am -1 on making a change like this late in the day, after we > have > > >> already had two RCs and I am hoping to get a third out tomorrow. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> - Andy > > >> > > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > >> (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > > > > > >
