Thanks for the clarification. +1 for keeping the current guarantees for @Public.
Thank you~ Xintong Song On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:07 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > Sorry for the confusion. @Public classes are guaranteed to be stable > between releases x.y.z and x.u.v (minor and bug fix release; naming is > indeed a bit off here) and we can break it with major releases (x.0.0 and > y.0.0). > > @Tison I would like to make what to include in the public API, hence what > to annotate with @Public and @PublicEvolving, a separate discussion. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:48 AM tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for starting this discussion! >> >> I agree turn on japicmp on PublicEvolving among bugfix releases is a nit >> win. >> >> @Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> I think @Public guarantee is good >> enough, the problem is a reachable 2.0 plan. >> >> My concern is more on classes that have no annotation but our developers >> regard as "something that should be stable". Previously I was required to >> keep compatibility of ClusterClient & HighAvailabilityServices because >> they >> might be depended on by user. >> >> Best, >> tison. >> >> >> Dawid Wysakowicz <dwysakow...@apache.org> 于2020年5月14日周四 下午5:08写道： >> >> > I also like the proposal for keeping the binary compatibility of >> > @PublicEvolving for bugfix releases. >> > >> > As for the @Public classes I think the current guarantees are good >> enough. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Dawid >> > >> > On 14/05/2020 10:49, Jingsong Li wrote: >> > > Thanks Till for starting this discussion. >> > > >> > > +1 for enabling the japicmp-maven-plugin for @PublicEvolving for bug >> fix >> > > releases. >> > > Bug fix should just be user imperceptible bug fix. Should not affect >> API >> > > and binary compatibility. >> > > >> > > And even PublicEvolving api change for "y" release, we should expose >> it >> > in >> > > dev mail list for discussing or a FLIP? >> > > >> > > BTW, public api can be changed by major releases? In annotation >> comments: >> > > "Only major releases (1.0, 2.0, 3.0) can break interfaces with this >> > > annotation". >> > > >> > > Best, >> > > Jingsong Lee >> > > >> > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 4:30 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Dear community, >> > >> >> > >> in the latest 1.10.1 bug fix release I introduced a binary >> incompatible >> > >> change to a class which is annotated with @PublicEvolving [1]. While >> > this >> > >> change is technically ok since we only provide API and binary >> > compatibility >> > >> for @Public classes across releases, it raised the question whether >> we >> > >> can't do better. >> > >> >> > >> For our users it might be surprising and really annoying that they >> > cannot >> > >> simply upgrade to the latest bug fix release without recompiling the >> > >> program or even having to change the source code of an application. I >> > >> believe we would provide a much better experience if we ensured that >> bug >> > >> fix releases maintain API and binary compatibility also for >> > @PublicEvolving >> > >> classes. Hence my proposal would be to tighten the stability >> guarantees >> > the >> > >> following way: >> > >> >> > >> * API + binary compatibility for @Public classes across all releases >> > (x.y.z >> > >> is compatible to u.v.w) >> > >> * API + binary compatibility for @PublicEvolving classes for all bug >> fix >> > >> releases in a minor release (x.y.z is compatible to x.y.u) >> > >> >> > >> This would entail that we can change @PublicEvolving classes only >> across >> > >> minor/major releases. >> > >> >> > >> Practically this would mean that we enable the japicmp-maven-plugin >> > >> for @PublicEvolving for bug fix releases. >> > >> >> > >> What do you think? >> > >> >> > >> [1] >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r293768d13d08149d756e0bf91be52372edb444c317535d1d5a496c3e%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E >> > >> >> > >> Cheers, >> > >> Till >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >
