Great idea! I don't know how well it will work in practice... I remember a lot of the deprecation removals required a fair bit of disentangling in 3.0. It is probably not so bad for stuff we want to remove in 4.0, though.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 6:27 PM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Minor version Y (x.Y.z | x > 0) MUST be incremented if new, backward > compatible functionality is introduced to the public API. It MUST be > incremented if any public API functionality is marked as deprecated..." > > Ref: https://semver.org/#spec-item-7 > > If we wanted to maintain semver compliance, then we could create a new 3.1 > branch off of the 3.0 tag that contains solely the deprecations and release > that. That 3.1 version would require very little testing. > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 2:47 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I was recently in a conversation where the question was raised about what > > future versions of Accumulo are expected. > > > > There was a time during the elasticity/4.0 development, before that was > > merged into the main branch that I thought it would be a good idea to > have > > a 3.1 LTM release. However, most of the work continued happening in the > > elasticity/4.0 branch, and that has since been merged into the main > branch. > > > > There was still an idea that 3.1 as a non-LTM release would be a good > idea > > as a chance to deprecate some things being removed in 4.0, to follow > > semver. However, it is questionable whether 3.1 is even something we'd > want > > to bother with doing a release at all. > > > > So, I figured I'd poll the community and see what people were interested > in > > doing. Here's the two options I was thinking, but there could be more > > alternatives to consider: > > > > 1. Drop the 3.1 branch and drop any plans for a 3.1 release. Make note of > > any semver violations in the release notes for 4.0 when it's ready. Make > > sure upgrades work from 3.0 non-LTM and 2.1 LTM > > > > 2. Do a bit of release testing for 3.1 and try to get a non-LTM release > > out. This allows us to follow semver but may create extra release testing > > and upgrade testing work. Make sure upgrades work from 3.1 non-LTM and > 2.1 > > LTM > > > > Does anybody else have any thoughts on what we should do with the 3.1 > > branch? > > >
