I pushed it out to a github fork: https://github.com/sjlee/protobuf/tree/2.5.0-incompatibility
We haven't observed other compatibility issues than these. On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Thanks, Sangjin. I'd be interested in taking a peek at a personal GitHub > repo or even just a patch file of those changes. If there were > incompatibilities, then that doesn't bode well for an upgrade to 2.6. > > --Chris Nauroth > > > > > On 5/19/15, 8:40 PM, "Sangjin Lee" <sj...@apache.org> wrote: > > >When we moved to Hadoop 2.4, the associated protobuf upgrade (2.4.1 -> > >2.5.0) proved to be one of the bigger problems. In our case, most of our > >users were using protobuf 2.4.x or earlier. > > > >We identified a couple of places where the backward compatibility was > >broken, and patched for those issues. We've been running with that patched > >version of protobuf 2.5.0 since. I can push out those changes to github or > >something if others are interested FWIW. > > > >Regards, > >Sangjin > > > >On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Colin P. McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > >wrote: > > > >> I agree that the protobuf 2.4.1 -> 2.5.0 transition could have been > >> handled a lot better by Google. Specifically, since it was an > >> API-breaking upgrade, it should have been a major version bump for the > >> Java library version. I also feel that removing the download links > >> for the old versions of the native libraries was careless, and > >> certainly burned some of our Hadoop users. > >> > >> However, I don't see any reason to believe that protobuf 2.6 will not > >> be wire-compatible with earlier versions. Google has actually been > >> pretty good about preserving wire-compatibility... just not about API > >> compatibility. If we want to get a formal statement from the project, > >> we can, but I would be pretty shocked if they decided to change the > >> protocol in a backwards-incompatible way in a minor version release. > >> > >> I do think there are some potential issues for our users of bumping > >> the library version in a minor Hadoop release. Until we implement > >> full dependency isolation for Hadoop, there may be some disruptions to > >> end-users from changing Java dependency versions. Similarly, users > >> will need to install a new native protobuf library version as well. > >> So I think we should bump the protobuf versions in Hadoop 3.0, but not > >> in 2.x. > >> > >> cheers, > >> Colin > >> > >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Alan Burlison > >><alan.burli...@oracle.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On 15/05/2015 09:44, Steve Loughran wrote: > >> > > >> >> Now: why do you want to use a later version of protobuf.jar? Is it > >> >> because "it is there"? Or is there a tangible need? > >> > > >> > > >> > No, it's because I'm looking at this from a platform perspective: We > >>have > >> > other consumers of ProtoBuf beside Hadoop and we'd obviously like to > >> > minimise the versions of PB that we ship, and preferably just ship the > >> > latest version. The fact that PB seems to often be incompatible across > >> > releases is an issue as it makes upgrading and dropping older versions > >> > problematic. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Alan Burlison > >> > -- > >> > >
