Hi,

The RC tag method sounds good, any mechanism that gives a heads-up  that
possibly some incompatible changes have been made would be cool.

Regards,
 Gerrit



On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Bill Graham <billgra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Gerrit,
>
> Sorry to hear these changes caused you problems. The PPNL interface is
> marked as Evolving, so it should be expected that future releases of that
> interface will change (i.e. break). I'm open for ways to better communicate
> these changes when they occur besides the current release notes process.
>
> thanks,
> Bill
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <dvrya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerrit, we do try to keep backwards incompatible changes to a minimum,
> > but sometimes they are needed to make progress. How about we make a
> > practice of tagging notifications about new pig release candidates with
> > [RC] so you can set up your filters and get a heads up to try your
> software
> > with the latest release candidate? That will at least let you prepare for
> > changes before a release is made, or perhaps argue that we should revert
> > something that is backwards incompatible.
> >
> > On Apr 18, 2013, at 2:23 AM, Gerrit Jansen van Vuuren <
> gerrit...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm the developer of http://gerritjvv.github.io/glue/ that uses the
> Pig
> > API
> > > directly to launch pig jobs in separate JVM instances.
> > >
> > > Recently I've updated to use pig-0.11.1 and found two API compatibility
> > > breaks.
> > >
> > > PigServer.parseExecType does not exist anymore, (was a static method up
> > to
> > > pig-0.10.1)
> > >
> > > New method for PigProgressNotificationListener
> > >
> > > public void initialPlanNotification(String scriptId, MROperPlan plan)
> > >
> > > It would be nice if you guys (when possible) could lookout for these
> kind
> > > of breaks in the future.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gerrit
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me at
> billgra...@gmail.com going forward.*
>

Reply via email to