You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Documentation: clarify API stability guarantees #597
We should fix that, however it's not clear that upstream TensorFlow is itself covered by the API stability guarantees anymore given all the changes that have happened over there.
As @Craigacp mentioned, upstream changes make a 'blanket' stability guarantee difficult. However, the current 'Experimental' warnings in package-info.java and install.md contradict the 1.0.0 release notes and may discourage production adoption.
My Proposal: I can submit a PR to replace the 'Experimental/Warning' labels with a nuanced stability statement. This would confirm our commitment to Java API stability while clearly noting the dependency on the upstream C API.
I followed the 'nuanced' approach we discussed, aligning the documentation with the 1.0.0 release notes while explicitly mentioning the dependency on the upstream C API to address the stability concerns. Looking forward to your feedback!
Activity
dheeraj-paliwal commentedon Mar 13, 2025
Hello sir,
With all respect can I try this , I guess probably I can solve the issue
Craigacp commentedon Apr 4, 2025
We should fix that, however it's not clear that upstream TensorFlow is itself covered by the API stability guarantees anymore given all the changes that have happened over there.
sshekhar-04 commentedon Jan 15, 2026
Hi @Craigacp, @karllessard, and @mihaimaruseac — I want to step-in, to help align the documentation regarding the API stability claims.
As @Craigacp mentioned, upstream changes make a 'blanket' stability guarantee difficult. However, the current 'Experimental' warnings in package-info.java and install.md contradict the 1.0.0 release notes and may discourage production adoption.
My Proposal: I can submit a PR to replace the 'Experimental/Warning' labels with a nuanced stability statement. This would confirm our commitment to Java API stability while clearly noting the dependency on the upstream C API.
sshekhar-04 commentedon Jan 16, 2026
Hi @Craigacp, @karllessard, and @mihaimaruseac — I have just submitted a Pull Request (PR #629 ) to resolve this.
I followed the 'nuanced' approach we discussed, aligning the documentation with the 1.0.0 release notes while explicitly mentioning the dependency on the upstream C API to address the stability concerns. Looking forward to your feedback!
docs: align API stability guarantees with 1.0.0 release (#597) (#629)