-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove deprecated APIs scheduled for removal in 1.6.0 #10501
Remove deprecated APIs scheduled for removal in 1.6.0 #10501
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks good to me, thanks.
@findepi you should set Iceberg 1.6.0 as milestone for this PR. |
@@ -1024,6 +1024,38 @@ acceptedBreaks: | |||
old: "class org.apache.iceberg.types.Types.NestedField" | |||
new: "class org.apache.iceberg.types.Types.NestedField" | |||
justification: "new Constructor added" | |||
org.apache.iceberg:iceberg-core: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we still need to add these rules if the break is justified (going to the deprecation process), or am I overestimating the abilities of rev-api here? :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes we still need to add these here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think in Trino we somehow avoid the need for rev-api exclusions, because we instructed it to watch for @Deprecated
annotation. However, we would need something more elaborate to take into account the text associated with the @deprecated
javadoc, which announces the version in which the given element is supposed to disappear. I don't know whether rev-api can already look at the javadoc text, but it definitely would be nice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks for fixing these
No description provided.