[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2687?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17046618#comment-17046618
]
Ismaël Mejía commented on AVRO-2687:
------------------------------------
This subject keeps coming back since users tend to be confused about it, but I
still have some doubts. One argument against semantic versioning is the fact
that Avro supports 9 language APIs, so if let's say C++ breaks its backwards
compatibility should we move the version number up for every single language?
Sounds like a burden and in particular a not easy to track situation since we
do not have proper validation of breaking changes in place for every language
at this point.
> Semantic Versioning
> -------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-2687
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2687
> Project: Apache Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Elliotte Rusty Harold
> Priority: Major
>
> API level and other incompatibility between Avro minor versions is causing
> significant problems for Apache Beam. E.g.
> [https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9779]
>
> Stable releases that don't break backwards compatibility would help us and
> other users a great deal. E.g. not removing joda.time support in 1.10.
>
> Absent that, at a minimum Avro should update its major version for any API
> breaking change. E.g. 1.9 should have been 2.0 because it was not API
> compatible with 1.8. In the case of Avro, this would apply not just to the
> public Java API but also to the serialization format.
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
