From: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace2: increment event format version
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 11:56:50 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YafTgiNl53FeWH+Q@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <211201.86zgpk9u3t.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
On 2021.12.01 16:57, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> [...]
>
> IOW I think this would make more sense as a version bumping criteria:
>
> The version should be incremented whenever an existing consumer of
> trace2 data might want to act differently based on the new data.
>
> An exception to this is that any new event types do not merit
> bumping the version number. E.g. we have a top-level event type
> "error" now, but might hypothetically add a new "warning" type.
> Such an addition won't require bumping the version.
>
> Likewise adding new mandatory fields to existing events doesn't
> require bumping the version. E.g. the "error" type has (as of
> writing) a "fmt" and "msg" field. Let's say a future version adds an
> "id" (as in unique id for the error) field, such an addition won't
> require bumping the version.
>
> In other words, consumers of the trace2 JSON format are expected to
> walk the structure and only pick those things that they know about.
> Any unknown fields the consumer doesn't know about can be safely
> discarded. This won't apply if the version is bumped, then all bets
> are off, and the meaning of existing fields may or may not have
> changed.
>
> The idea is to encourage additive changes over changes to existing
> fields, and to reduce the work in maintaining the consumers of the
> format.
>
> As long as consumers ignore new unknown data they won't need to
> be updated every time the format changes in any way, only for
> potentially backwards-incompatible changes.
>
> Wouldn't this be a saner policy for version bumping? AFAICT the only
> thing you wouldn't be getting that you're getting now is the trivial
> optimization of being able to say cheaply route trace2 payloads based on
> version number alone (but even that is iffy now due to the subjectivity
> of "significant change").
No objections from me, this sounds like a good improvement.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-01 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-11 22:34 [PATCH] trace2: increment event format version Josh Steadmon
2021-11-11 23:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-11 23:06 ` Josh Steadmon
2021-11-11 23:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-12 22:33 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-12 23:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-12-01 15:49 ` Jeff Hostetler
2021-12-01 15:57 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-12-01 19:56 ` Josh Steadmon [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YafTgiNl53FeWH+Q@google.com \
--to=steadmon@google.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=emilyshaffer@google.com \
--cc=git@jeffhostetler.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jeffhost@microsoft.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).