+1.
Colin
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Karthik Kambatla
wrote:
> Hi devs
>
> As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them that
> are not annotated at all. This is seldom intentional. Avoiding incompatible
> changes to all these classes can be considerable baggage.
Thanks everyone for chiming in. I created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10896 as a 2.5 blocker.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Chris Nauroth
wrote:
> +1 for the proposal.
>
> I believe stating that "classes without annotations are implicitly private"
> is consistent with what w
+1 for the proposal.
I believe stating that "classes without annotations are implicitly private"
is consistent with what we publish for our JavaDocs.
IncludePublicAnnotationsStandardDoclet, used in the root pom.xml, filters
out classes that don't explicitly have the Public annotation.
Chris Naur
Fair points, Jason.
The fact that we include this in the compatibility guideline "should not"
affect how developers go about this. We should still strive to annotate
every new class we add, and reviewers should continue to check for them.
However, in case we miss annotations, we won't be burdened
I think that's a reasonable proposal as long as we understand it changes
the burden from finding all the things that should be marked @Private to
finding all the things that should be marked @Public. As Tom Graves
pointed out in an earlier discussion about @LimitedPrivate, it may be
impossible
+1 for Karthik's suggestion.
- Tsuyoshi
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
> Hi devs
>
> As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them that
> are not annotated at all. This is seldom intentional. Avoiding incompatible
> changes to all these classes
+1
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote:
> That policy makes sense to me. We should still label things @Private of
> course so that it can be reflected in the documentation.
>
> -Sandy
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Karthik Kambatla
> wrote:
>
> > Hi devs
> >
> > As you m
That policy makes sense to me. We should still label things @Private of
course so that it can be reflected in the documentation.
-Sandy
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Karthik Kambatla
wrote:
> Hi devs
>
> As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them that
> are not
Hi devs
As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them that
are not annotated at all. This is seldom intentional. Avoiding incompatible
changes to all these classes can be considerable baggage.
I was wondering if we should add an explicit disclaimer in our
compatibility gu
