+1 to the proposal. The problem is that we have a very big API surface especially with the coprocessors included in the report. Even simple bug fixes can introduce protected or public methods to base classes, which makes patch releases very hard to maintain. I would not want to spend the effort to spend tons of time trying to make a patch not introduce new methods in order to backport. That effort can be spent elsewhere IMO.
Looking at the report https://people.apache.org/~enis/1.0.0_1.0.1RC2_compat_report.html, nothing strikes me as "new functionality". Going from current 1.0.0 to 1.0.1RC2 should actually be as you would expect from upgrading a patch release. Yes, adding new API in patch releases will make downgrading harder, but I think that is an acceptable tradeoff. We can document that if your application compiles (meaning that you are not using new API) with 1.0.0, then you can swap your jars in a binary compat manner. Enis On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > Anyone disagree with the point of view put forward by Josh and Sean? > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Andy -- I understood your intent, but thanks for clarifying. (as well as > > taking the time to break this discussion out in the first place). I agree > > with your assessment. > > > > re: Sean's comments, if it wasn't clear by me asking in the first place, > I > > also think sticking as close as possible to semver's rules is the best > > approach, although I'm getting the impression that there have been some > > previous reservations to doing so (especially by your comment about > > backporting features if there is demand is). > > > > I've found adhering to the bug-fix release restrictions can be a very > > painful and time-consuming task, so this is something to get a > > representative sampling of those who do the work to make sure everyone is > > on board. > > > > > > Sean Busbey wrote: > > > >> I'd much rather we stick with the definitions used in Semantic > Versioning. > >> Our use is already confusing enough given our matrix of compatibilities > >> that don't get "major version for breaking" protections. > >> > >> We've previously discussed how we'll do additional minor releases when > >> there's sufficient interest in the new features present there. What's > >> building that demand if any backwards compatible change can go back > into a > >> patch release? > >> > >> Would we have an easier time restraining ourselves if we had a regular > >> schedule planned around new minor versions? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> While I can understand the desire to want to add things, I do think it > >>> makes things harder for users to reliably write code against versions > of > >>> HBase which (by their view) should be completely compatible with one > >>> another. > >>> > >>> Take this extremely hypothetical situation: I'm new to HBase and start > >>> writing some code against HBase 1.0.1 which was just deployed at my > >>> $job. I > >>> don't _know_ what APIs are new, I just know what exists and treat that > as > >>> acceptable for me to be using. Meanwhile in production, some other > people > >>> find a bug with HBase 1.0.1 and roll back to 1.0.0 which they had been > >>> previously using. My reaction would be "of course my code should work > >>> with > >>> HBase 1.0.0, I only used the public API" when in fact this is not true. > >>> > >>> Personally, I think it's a little bold to say semver is even in use if > >>> this principal isn't being followed as it doesn't follow at all with my > >>> understanding on the guarantees defined by semver for bug-fix releases. > >>> > >>> That being said, if the intent *is* to allow ourselves to make these > >>> sorts > >>> of changes, I just think some sort of disclaimer should be present: > >>> > >>> - HBase uses Semantic Versioning for its release versioning > >>> + HBase uses Semantic Versioning for its release versioning with a > caveat > >>> that methods and members might be added in newer bug-fix releases that > >>> were > >>> not present in the previous bug-fix release. > >>> > >>> > >>> Andrew Purtell wrote: > >>> > >>> [Subject changed] > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I was a little surprised when I noticed method additions to > >>>> > >>>>> InterfaceAudience.Public annotated classes. This means that a user > >>>>> could > >>>>> write code against 1.0.1 that would not work against 1.0.0 which > seems > >>>>> undesirable for a bugfix release. I read over the book section on > >>>>> compatibility and didn't see this addressed, so I thought I'd ask. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Let's clarify this. It's not the first time this question has been > >>>> asked. > >>>> > >>>> To get things moving: > >>>> > >>>> I propose the following addition to the "Client API compatibility" > >>>> section > >>>> of Section 11.1: > >>>> > >>>> + APIs available in a patch version will be available in all later > >>>> + patch versions. However, new APIs may be added which will not be > >>>> + available in earlier patch versions. > >>>> > >>>> I propose the following change to the "Client Binary compatibility" > >>>> section > >>>> of Section 11.1: > >>>> > >>>> - Old client code can run unchanged (no recompilation needed) against > >>>> new > >>>> jars. > >>>> + Client code written to APIs available in a given patch release > >>>> + can run unchanged (no recompilation needed) against the new > >>>> + jars of later patch versions. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> What do you think? > >>>> > >>>> If these changes are (mostly) ok, then this clarifies in one > direction. > >>>> > >>>> If these changes are not acceptable, I will propose edits that clarify > >>>> toward the opposite meaning. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
