The proposal sounds good to me as well.

On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 4:33 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> That proposal sounds good to me.  The 3.1 branch could be deleted sooner
> rather than later.  Creating the 3.1-deprecations branch does not seem
> urgent and could be done at any time.  When the 3.1-deprecations branch
> does exists will need to agree on how to do merges from 2.1.  Seems like
> merges from 2.1 will not need to go through the 3.1-deprecations branch in
> general, could on an as needed basis though.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 5:05 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > If we go through with this idea (which I think is reasonable, if nobody
> > else weighs in to suggest an alternative, or to object), then we would do
> > something like these steps:
> >
> > 1. Update PRs and issues currently pointing to 3.1 to point to 4.0/main
> > 2. Delete the current 3.1 branch (ensuring everything is merged to main
> > first)
> > 3. Create a 3.1-deprecations branch from 3.0.0 tag (name should
> > disambiguate from the current 3.1 branch)
> > 4. Identify any API removals in 4.0 that must be marked deprecated for a
> > 3.1.0, and apply them to that branch
> > 5. Update build as needed to address any build failures or license issues
> > (like updating copyright dates in NOTICE files)
> > 6. Release 3.1.0 before 4.0.0 is released (at some point before... not
> > necessarily urgent)
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 6:44 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >

Reply via email to