On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would be in favor of going 2.6.0 and jackson upgrade in 1.1. > I am also +1 bumping to Hadoop 2.6.x and Jackson 1.9.x in HBase 1.1.0. This seems like the most practical solution to the problems outlined here. Let me explore the API surface area differences between Hadoop 2.5, 2.6 and see what might crop up for users. -n On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > Does this 'admission' help with the which-hadoop thread too? > > > > > > > Right -- "working toward semver". > > > > Are we now at liberty to bump to 2.6 or 2.7 even for branch-1.1? I still > > have Karthik's offer to roll a 2.5.3 with the HDFS issue resolved. > > > > What about the jackson issue with 2.5 YARN runtime? > > > > Thanks Sean and Josh for being our community conscience on these issues. > > > > > Just want to make sure we're all on the same page (or find out if not). > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Then let's get Andrew's proposal committed: > > > > > > > > > > + 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. > > > > > > > > > > We can even claim that if you are not using new APIs, we are binary > > > > compat > > > > > for downgrade. But you have to make sure that your code compiles > with > > > > that > > > > > downgraded version. > > > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fine with us adding methods to public APIs in patch releases > so > > > > long > > > > > as > > > > > > we stop claiming to follow semver. We can say we take the > > principles > > > of > > > > > > semver as inspiration. This would reflect the current state of > the > > > > world > > > > > > WRT 1.0.1 and would still give us a reason keep the narrower > > > definition > > > > > of > > > > > > "new features" in minor versions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No longer claiming semver would also have the added benefit of > > making > > > > it > > > > > > for me to easier to explain our compatibility promises to people. > > > Right > > > > > now > > > > > > I have to explain the difference between the things that get > proper > > > > > semver > > > > > > treatment (e.g. public api, wire compat) and which things are > > > > downgraded > > > > > to > > > > > > breaking-on-minor (e.g. LimitedPrivate, binary compatibility). > > > Starting > > > > > > with the context of "we like semver" will be easier than "we use > > > > semver". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like Josh, my main concern is that we accurately advertise what > > we're > > > > > > doing. There are few things I've found more frustrating than > being > > an > > > > end > > > > > > user of a project that claims to follow semver without > > understanding > > > > the > > > > > > burden that carries (and subsequently not meeting it). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree w/ the Enis characterization (so we need the callout on > > > > semvar) > > > > > > but > > > > > > > think we should practice what Seans says (patch is bug fixes > > only). > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
