Agreed that we should not change the declared interface for TRR in patch releases. Ugly, but we can rethrow as RuntimeException or ignore in 1.1 and before.
I think this is also a blocker: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14474 Enis On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > I've run the compatibility checking tool [0] between branch-1.1 > (0bf97bac2ed564994a0bcda5f1993260bf0b448f) and 1.1.0 > (e860c66d41ddc8231004b646098a58abca7fb523). There has been a little bit of > drift, but nothing that I think is release-blocking. However, I'd like to > bring it to your attention here, before it sinks an RC. You can compare > this to the run between 1.1.0 and 1.1.2RC2, which became 1.1.2 [1]. Notice > we've added a handful of methods, which is acceptable according to our > guidelines [2].The question I have is about adding throws IOException > to TableRecordReader.close(). IOException is in the interface declaration > of the super type, but this will require a source code change for anyone > consuming our type directly. I believe, according to [2], this breaks our > guidelines for a patch release. > > I've also sent a note over to HBASE-14394 [3] regarding the added public > and undocumented method to TableRecordReader, so there's potentially two > addendum's required for this patch. > > How would the community like to proceed? > > [0]: > http://people.apache.org/~ndimiduk/1.1.0_branch-1.1_compat_report.html > [1]: http://people.apache.org/~ndimiduk/1.1.0_1.1.2RC2_compat_report.html > [2]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning > [3]: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14394?focusedCommentId=14905429&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14905429 > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > It's that time again, I'm looking at spinning 1.1.3 bit this week, with > > hopes that we can get a release out in early October. The only issue I'm > > actively tracking as a must for this release is HBASE-14374, the back > port > > for HBASE-14317. Is there anything else you're planning to get in for > this > > one that's not been committed yet? Please speak up. I'll be starting my > > pre-release validations tomorrow or Wednesday. > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > PMC: do you have bandwidth to test yet another round of RC's? > >> > >> Yes, absolutely, and if you'd also like help making the RCs mail me > >> privately. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > Hi folks, > >> > > >> > I know we just got through voting periods on three patch releases, but > >> > HBASE-14317 is looking pretty bad by my eye. Given we have a fix on > our > >> > end, I'm up for spinning 1.1.3 a couple weeks early. How does the > >> community > >> > feel about it? Users: do you need this patch immediately? PMC: do you > >> have > >> > bandwidth to test yet another round of RC's? I'm not on JIRA yet this > >> > morning; is there other nastiness we should get fixed in an > accelerated > >> .3 > >> > as well? > >> > > >> > Thanks for your thoughts and your time. > >> > -n > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> > >> - Andy > >> > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > >> (via Tom White) > >> > > > > >
