Maksim,
Great summary! +1 for versioning scheme. However, deprecation rules can be possibly misleading. I think that we should use 'since' as a mandatory annotation, that will mark the release where the API can (not should) be changed, regardless of our intention to modify it. And add some kind of a tag or alike to that APIs only that we need to update/remove since mentioned release. Otherwise, I think, simple deprecation annotation will raise questions 'when it was deprecated' or 'is it already time to update/remove deprecated API'. Also, if agreed on 'since' annotation usage, we possibly should create the issue to tag all current deprecated APIs with since where applicable. > On 16 Mar 2021, at 21:05, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> wrote: > > Folks, > > > Thanks to everyone for participating in the call. Here is the list of > points we've agreed on and the list of actions which should be > discussed in more details. > > > = AGREED = > > == Versioning == > > grand.major.bugfix[-rc_number] > > The 'grand' version is fixed while both Ignite architectures (current > version 2.x and 3.x) are in a state of active development/maintained > or until otherwise is discussed further. This means: > - the master branch of the ignite repository [2] always release under > the '2.x.x' version > - the main branch of the ignite-3 repository [1] always release under > the '3.x.x' version > > The 'major' versions for each architecture may contain breaking > backwards compatibility changes compared to the previous one if the > following criteria are met: > - users should be warned about breaking release changes (the ways of > notification should be additionally discussed and agreed upon) > - the deprecation rules may be applied for the current 'major' release > (the ways of deprecation must be additionally discussed and agreed > upon) > - current @deprecated already have enough time live and some of them > can be removed using common sense > > The 'bugfix' version is used for emergency releases and can't contain > any breaking backwards compatibility changes. > > == Commitments == > > Any commitment to support previous releases (e.g. 1 year, 1 quarter) > have no sense to the open-source Ignite community in the case of > observed backward compatibility violations, however, in any of such > cases, an emergency release can be performed according to the accepted > release procedure. > > > = DISCUSSION & SUGGESTIONS = > > > == Deprecation rules == > > The API deprecation rules must be discussed and agreed upon in more > details. The list of options we have: > - deprecate and remove API allowed in the next release > - deprecate and remove API allowed through the one release > - deprecation may contain comments - the release version then the API > will be changed > - deprecation may contain comments - the date from which the API changes > allowed > > I've checked the `JEP 277 Enhanced Deprecation` [3] proposal which > adds the `forRemoval` and `since` optional elements to the deprecated > annotation and I think we can use a similar approach here with some > additions. For instance, if the last released version is 2.10 my > suggestions would be the following: > - [case: change API as quickly as possible] mark some API as > deprecated, set 'since' version 2.12, change it in the 2.12 release > major version. > - [case: deprecate API without intention to change] mark API as > deprecated without 'since' options, change it without notifications > since 2.13 releases and so on. > > > == User notification rules == > > Uses must be well-notified about the planned backward compatibility > violations. The options we have: > - the notification thought the source code with well-described JavaDocs > - add labels to the JIRA issue if some deprecations occur in the related patch > - add deprecation and backward compatibility paragraph to the RELEASE_NOTES > - add a page to the Apache Ignite website with a backwards > compatibility description between the closest versions > > All of the above must be done. > > > == Experimental and unstable APIs == > > The options we have: > - only the new API can be marked as unstable and/or experimental > - such APIs can be changed without any notifications > > > Please, share your thoughts. > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite > [3] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/277 > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> let me add my 50 cents. I don't see major issues with this IEP, for now. >> And I really looking forward to talking about it. I can't get what causes >> misunderstanding. >> >> The only thing that concerns me here is that IEP requires the community to >> support solutions for 1 year, 1 quarter, etc. >> >> Apache community is not a commercial company that provides support of any >> kind, and I would be reluctant to add these or similar statements to any >> public documents. At any point in time, the community and PMC can vote and >> introduce any major feature breaking compatibility. We tend to avoid such >> actions to keep users best interest. But it is not a commitment. >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> чт, 11 мар. 2021 г. в 23:11, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: >> >>> Val, >>> >>> >>> I'm sorry if anything from what I've said sounded disrespectful. All >>> of you are examples for me to follow :-) >>> >>> Have you checked the `motivation` [1] topic on the IEP-69 page? Should >>> I add more details to it prior to the call? I want to make Ignite >>> better and also think that the current 2.x version with all the >>> advantages and disadvantages is far from exhausted its capabilities. >>> I'm pretty sure the same motivation page exists for 3.0 version >>> describing the advantages and disadvantages of developing mentioned >>> IEPs. It will be good to share it prior to the cal also. >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-69%3A+The+evolutionary+release+process#IEP69:Theevolutionaryreleaseprocess-Motivation >>> >>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 01:21, Valentin Kulichenko >>> <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ksenya, thanks for scheduling this so quickly! >>>> >>>> Guys, I hope we can make this discussion constructive. Please keep in >>> mind >>>> that Ignite 3 is an ongoing project supported by multiple contributors, >>>> committers, and PMC members. Neglecting 6+ months of effort and >>> suggesting >>>> that it's just "prototyping some cool features and nothing more" is >>> really >>>> bizarre, and, quite frankly, sounds disrespectful to fellow developers >>>> (although I'm 100% sure it was not intended this way). >>>> >>>> Maxim, one of the biggest issues I have with your IEP is that I don't >>>> understand the motivation behind it. If you don't mind, I would like to >>>> suggest that you kick off the meeting with a detailed explanation >>>> of exactly that. The first step is to achieve a mutual understanding of >>>> each other's goals. Once we do that, I'm sure we will easily find a >>>> solution. >>>> >>>> -Val >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:55 AM Kseniya Romanova < >>> romanova.ks....@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let's make a quick call next week and try to find a compromise which >>> can >>>>> get the process moving: >>>>> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/276851588/ >>>>> >>>>> ср, 10 мар. 2021 г. в 16:27, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: >>>>> >>>>>> Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Agree, the discussion may be endless without compromises on all >>> sides. >>>>>> I always think that if there is no consensus (and I see from the >>>>>> thread [1] that it's was no found) for such important decisions like >>>>>> product future development and releases AFS provides the voting >>>>>> procedure. Without fixing the results of the discussion [1] it sounds >>>>>> like prototyping some cool features and nothing more. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, back to Denis suggestion can you share - what would be the best >>>>>> time for all of us (considering different time zones) to have a call? >>>>>> >>>>>> I also think that we should start a vote about the future releases on >>>>>> our Apache Ignite web-site and user-list, thus all who are using the >>>>>> Apache Ignite may choose the best option they like. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> >>>>> >>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 03:57, Valentin Kulichenko >>>>>> <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Maxim, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I disagree with the suggestions. Several community members have >>> already >>>>>>> pointed out the discussion about Ignite 3.0 [1]. During that >>>>> discussion, >>>>>> we >>>>>>> did agree on the scope of the changes for 3.0, as well as the >>> general >>>>>>> direction for the product. The new repo was created not to "develop >>>>> from >>>>>>> scratch", but to provide an opportunity for the community members >>> to >>>>>>> actively work on Ignite 3 without killing the Ignite 2.x. No >>>>> alternative >>>>>>> solution for this was presented, so we went ahead with the process >>> -- I >>>>>>> consider that to be an example of the silent consensus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also want to emphasize that Ignite 3 is active and is moving >>> forward. >>>>>> If >>>>>>> you look at the ignite-3 repo, commits and PRs are coming in on >>> regular >>>>>>> basis. We also had the first alpha release early in the year. I do >>>>> agree >>>>>>> with you, however, that there is not too much activity on the dev >>> list. >>>>>> As >>>>>>> far as I can tell, the main reason for this is that communication >>> moved >>>>>> to >>>>>>> IEPs and GitHub PRs, for better or worse. This is something we all >>> can >>>>>> talk >>>>>>> about -- I personally would like to see more discussions on the dev >>>>> list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And finally, I agree with Denis. This whole situation is >>>>>>> counter-productive. I'm happy to jump on a Discord or any other >>> voice >>>>>> chat >>>>>>> to discuss in more detail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:09 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ignites, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've created the IEP-69 [1] which describes the evolutionary >>> release >>>>>>>> process for the Apache Ignite 2.x version. You can find all the >>>>>>>> details of my suggestion there, but here you can find the crucial >>>>>>>> points: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 0. Versioning - grand.major.bug-fix[-rc_number] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Prepare the next 3.0 release based on 2.x with some breaking >>>>>>>> compatibility changes. The same things happen from time to time >>> with >>>>>>>> other Apache projects like Hadoop, Spark. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Discuss with the whole Community and assign the right release >>>>>>>> version to the activities related to the development of the new >>>>> Ignite >>>>>>>> architecture (currently all the changes you can find in the >>> ignite-3 >>>>>>>> branch). >>>>>>>> I see no 3.0 discussions on the dev-list and I see no-activity >>> with >>>>>>>> the 3.0 version currently. So, it's better to remove the `lock` >>> from >>>>>>>> the 3.0 version and allow the removal of obsolete features. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Guarantee the PDS compatibility between the `grand` versions >>> of >>>>> the >>>>>>>> Apache Ignite for the next year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Guarantee the bug-fix release for the last 2.x Apache Ignite >>>>>>>> version for the next year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5. Perform some improvements which break the backward >>> compatibility, >>>>>>>> for instance: removing @deprecated API (except metrics), removing >>>>>>>> obsolete modules, changing the cluster defaults. You can find >>>>>>>> additional details on the IEP-69 page [1]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please, share your thoughts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-69%3A+The+evolutionary+release+process >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>
