On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I hope to create a 1.7.3 release candidate in the next few days.
>
> Are there any changes folks want to get into this release?
>
> Doug
>

I'd love to see resolution on AVRO-997.  I think I even like the
enforce-strict-enum-use approach better.

Since that would be breaking is it out of scope?

-Sean

AVRO-997 would be an incompatible change so we'd have to change the
release name to 1.8.0 and folks might then reasonably adopt it more
slowly, since it might break things.  I'd prefer to wait until we have
other more substantial incompatible changes; to group them together in
a single incompatible release.

Also, I don't think of AVRO-997 as a bug but rather a lack of error
checking.  The proposed change is to no longer permit folks to pass a
java.lang.Enum in generic data, but rather to force them to always use
GenericEnumSymbol, or switch to using specific or reflect, which allow
java.lang.Enum for enum symbols.  So if this is causing you problems,
you can simply change your code to use GenericEnumSymbol now rather
than wait until 1.8.0 forces you to make that change.

Am I missing something?

Doug

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Sean Busbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AVRO-997

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> AVRO-997 would be an incompatible change so we'd have to change the
> release name to 1.8.0 and folks might then reasonably adopt it more
> slowly, since it might break things.  I'd prefer to wait until we have
> other more substantial incompatible changes; to group them together in
> a single incompatible release.
>
>

Sure, that sounds reasonable. Mind if I update the ticket to reference this
so that observers know that the strict approach is a go, and that we're
just waiting to aggregate breakage? The ticket currently reads to me like
it's an open topic.
Also, I don't think of AVRO-997 as a bug but rather a lack of error
> checking.  The proposed change is to no longer permit folks to pass a
> java.lang.Enum in generic data, but rather to force them to always use
> GenericEnumSymbol, or switch to using specific or reflect, which allow
> java.lang.Enum for enum symbols.  So if this is causing you problems,
> you can simply change your code to use GenericEnumSymbol now rather
> than wait until 1.8.0 forces you to make that change.
>
> Am I missing something?
>

That's essentially correct.

-Sean

Sean,

Sure, please update it.  I set the "fix version" to 1.8 earlier.  Thanks!

Doug

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Sean Busbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> AVRO-997 would be an incompatible change so we'd have to change the
>> release name to 1.8.0 and folks might then reasonably adopt it more
>> slowly, since it might break things.  I'd prefer to wait until we have
>> other more substantial incompatible changes; to group them together in
>> a single incompatible release.
>>
>>
>
> Sure, that sounds reasonable. Mind if I update the ticket to reference this
> so that observers know that the strict approach is a go, and that we're
> just waiting to aggregate breakage? The ticket currently reads to me like
> it's an open topic.
>
>
> Also, I don't think of AVRO-997 as a bug but rather a lack of error
>> checking.  The proposed change is to no longer permit folks to pass a
>> java.lang.Enum in generic data, but rather to force them to always use
>> GenericEnumSymbol, or switch to using specific or reflect, which allow
>> java.lang.Enum for enum symbols.  So if this is causing you problems,
>> you can simply change your code to use GenericEnumSymbol now rather
>> than wait until 1.8.0 forces you to make that change.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>
> That's essentially correct.
>
> -Sean

Could anyone please review this patch:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1163
Thanks in advance!
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I hope to create a 1.7.3 release candidate in the next few days.
>
> Are there any changes folks want to get into this release?
>
> Doug
>