> We also do it, so that users see less of "This was in 0.98, but how come it is not in 1.0.x". I think we will get substantially better over time.
It will. Eventually we will EOL 0.98 In the meantime we could clarify how 0.98 relates to later releases now that releases 1.0.0 and up are being more strict about compatibility. There will always be a 1.x that provides a straight upgrade path from 0.98, or if not that is an error in 0.98 maintenance that would need to be caught and corrected (hopefully before release). The part of it which may not be obvious is which 1.x is the straight path upgrade from 0.98 could change over time. As 0.98 RM I'm also ok with being more strict about backporting features at this point. I think many (most?) are moving on from 0.98 and we should be encouraging new users to start with 1.0. However, let's use HBASE-13477 as an example. Where we have people running 0.98 in production and cannot upgrade right now beyond a later 0.98 point version, not having access to highly useful metrics simply due to self-imposed policy isn't operator friendly. Sure, we could say "since you want it, upgrade :-)" but that's unsatisfying if upgrading just isn't possible. If we want to narrow down when and why we'd put something in 0.98 that could only go into the latest 1.x, we can have that conversation. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Why don't we just focus development after a minor release on the next > minor > > release instead of the next patch release? > > > > We could limit backports to the patch releases to critical bugs, which > > would cut down on how often someone has to deal with the pain of making > > sure we don't add to public APIs. It also reduces the risk someone going > > through an upgrade has, since there are fewer changes. > > > > Big +1. I think we will get there, but devs/committers are used to > backporting simple > new features across all branches. Not to nit pick or anything, an example > is > HBASE-13168 which I failed to catch. Ideally it should not have been in > 1.0.1. We also > do it, so that users see less of "This was in 0.98, but how come it is not > in 1.0.x". I think > we will get substantially better over time. > > > > > > If someone fixes a bug and doesn't want to do the work of making sure it > > doesn't add methods in a patch release, they just don't backport to that > > version and make a follow on e.g. "backport to 1.0.z" ticket. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > +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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sean > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
