On Mar 6, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > <vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> I'd encourage everyone to post their wish list on the Roadmap wiki that >> *warrants* making incompatible changes forcing us to go 3.x. > > This is a useful exercise, but not a prerequisite to releasing 3.0.0 > as an alpha off of trunk, right? Andrew summarized the operating > assumptions for anyone working on it: rolling upgrades still work, > wire compat is preserved, breaking changes may get rolled back when > branch-3 is in beta (so be very conservative, notify others loudly). > This applies to branches merged to trunk, also. Not a prerequisite for alpha releases, yes. But it will be for a 'GA' release, because after that we will be back to restricting incompatible changes on 3.x line and we have to say no to features that need API breakage after that. If others feel there are features that warrant incompatibility, we should hear about them for inclusion in such a 3.x release. Till now, the operating assumption was to not break anything as much as possible. If we are opening the window on incompatibilities in 3.x, might as well get everyone to think about stuff that they want. >> +1 to Jason's comments on general. We can keep rolling alphas that >> downstream can pick up, but I'd also like us to clarify the exit criterion >> for a GA release of 3.0 and its relation to the life of 2.x if we are going >> this route. This brings us back to the roadmap discussion, and a collective >> agreement about a logical step at a future point in time where we say we >> have enough incompatible features in 3.x that we can stop putting more of >> them and start stabilizing it. > > We'll have this discussion again. We don't need to reach consensus on > the roadmap, just that each artifact reflects the output of the > project. Agreed. I wasn't requesting us to reach a consensus on the roadmap. Just requesting others to put their wish list up. >> Irrespective of that, here is my proposal in the interim: >> - Run JDK7 + JDK8 first in a compatible manner like I mentioned before for >> atleast two releases in branch-2: say 2.8 and 2.9 before we consider taking >> up the gauntlet on 3.0. >> - Continue working on the classpath isolation effort and try making it as >> compatible as is possible for users to opt in and migrate easily. > > +1 for 2.x, but again I don't understand the sequencing. -C There isn't. I was saying "Irrespective of that".. Thanks, +Vinod
