Documentation: clarify API stability guarantees

[winne42]

System information

• TensorFlow version: 1.0.0
• Doc Links:
  • https://github.com/tensorflow/java/releases/tag/v1.0.0
  • https://github.com/tensorflow/java/blob/r1.0/docs/install.md
  • https://github.com/tensorflow/java/blob/r1.0/tensorflow-core/tensorflow-core-api/src/main/java/org/tensorflow/package-info.java
  • https://www.tensorflow.org/jvm/install

Describe the documentation issue

In the 1.0.0 release notes it is mentioned that

Starting from this version, the project will follow the TensorFlow API stability guarantees.

On the other hand, install.md reads

Caution: The TensorFlow Java API is not covered by the TensorFlow API stability guarantees.

And package-info.java also says

WARNING: The API is currently experimental and is not covered by TensorFlow API stability guarantees

Which one is it, could you please align the documentation? Thanks and have a nice weekend!

P.S.: Also https://www.tensorflow.org/jvm/install seems to point to a severely outdated version of install.md

[dheeraj-paliwal]

Hello sir,
With all respect can I try this , I guess probably I can solve the issue

[Craigacp]

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]

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]

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!