Or a busy time :) . I will respond - no worries :). On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:39 PM Robin Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps not a hot topic :-) > > Never the less i'd be interested on hearing your thoughts Jarek. > > R > > On Wed, 4 May 2022 at 17:57, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is a very good point. I'd love to hear what others think about it. > I have my thoughts there but will keep my mouth shut for a while this time > to hear from others first :) > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 6:32 PM Robin Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> This is probably slightly touching on the issues Jarek and Kevin were > >> discussing in the release announcement however i think it warrants its > >> own thread. > >> > >> Firstly i'd like to thank everyone for their hard work in 2.3, I > >> haven't had time to try it out yet but i do look forward giving it a > >> spin. > >> > >> We run a fairly large Airflow installation that has been running from > >> early in the 1. series. > >> > >> One thing i've observed since the start of the 2 series is that the > >> minor releases 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 contain quite ambitious feature changes. > >> These series often don't mature until 2 or so patch releases. I am not > >> pointing fingers here it's just the nature of shipping software. > >> > >> When a new minor release comes out any outstanding fixes for the > >> previous series (2.2) now get moved and applied to the new series > >> (2.3). This can be quite problematic for a user, either bite the > >> bullet and do a risky upgrade to a .0 release or run our own build > >> with the given patches applied. The obvious issue with the latter is > >> your potentially running different code paths to everyone else which > >> makes getting support hard. > >> > >> As far as i am aware the larger vendors maintain their own builds with > >> extra patches applied. For smaller teams (or new users) doing this is > >> prohibitive. I guess this is one of the selling points of paying for a > >> managed service. > >> > >> Would it be possible to continue support for the previous minor series > >> with patch releases whilst the new minor release matures? I know such > >> a thing isn't uncommon in other projects such as Postgres (all be it > >> with major releases). > >> > >> Obviously I am aware a lot of time and effort goes into cutting a > >> release, for which I am eternally greatful :-) > >> > >> R >
