You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to notifications@accumulo.apache.org by "Mike Drob (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2015/04/06 19:15:12 UTC

[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3608) Restore backwards binary compatibility with version 1.6.z

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3608?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14481442#comment-14481442 ] 

Mike Drob commented on ACCUMULO-3608:
-------------------------------------

If 1.6.{0,1,2,z} are not compatible with each other, then which do we expect 1.7.0 to share compatibility with?

> Restore backwards binary compatibility with version 1.6.z
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-3608
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3608
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.7.0
>            Reporter: Sean Busbey
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>         Attachments: compat_report.html
>
>
> We need to ensure that a check for binary backwards compatibility passes when comparing 1.6.z to current master, since it is only a minor version bump.
> {quote}
> That means new classes, interfaces,methods, enum members, etc are all fine. All of the things labelled as HIGH severity in the binary compatibility report are definitely a problem. They're mostly classes and methods that were removed.
> The end goal should be a report like the one Corey got for 1.6.1 -> 1.6.2. We don't need the reciprocal report to be compatible because minor versions need not be forward compatible.
> Problems in the source compatibility report are worth reviewing, but things that only show up there shouldn't be a blocker.
> {quote}
> There are instructions for running the compatibility checker in test/compat/japi-compliance/README



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)