I like Christophe's proposal ! On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:52 AM Christophe Le Saëc <chles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello > I find this proposal relevant. > > to clarify : > > > From 1.12.0 on, I'd like to propose maintaining *two* major versions > > (i.e. 1.12.x and 1.11.x). That would allow us to deprecate and modify > > APIs and give developers one whole major release to switch. > > this means to maintain 3 branches (1.13.0-SNAPSHOT (master), 1.12.x and > 1.11.x) ? > > what about ? > - master (1.13.0-SNAPSHOT) receive new feature + CVE + bug fixes + API > breaking change (keeping old API with deprecated tag when possible) and > remove old deprecated API (possibly not compatible with 1.12.x) > - 1.12.x receive from master new feature + CVE + bug fixes (1.12.n+1 should > stay compatible with 1.12.n, so, it won't receive breaking change). > - 1.11.x receive from master only CVE + bug fixes. > > thus allow users to adopt new feature even on minor released, and adapt > smoothly to breaking change on major release. > (this imply to distinguish between *new feature* and *breaking changes* ?) > > Best regards, > Christophe. > > > Le lun. 17 juil. 2023 à 21:59, Ryan Skraba <r...@skraba.com> a écrit : > > > Hello! There's a number of outstanding questions and discussions > > about releases, maintenance, lifecycle :D I thought it might be > > productive to make a goal to work towards. > > > > Specifically, I couldn't point to a policy about this question being > > asked on the user@ mailing list: when do we stop maintaining a > > version? My experience over the last few years has been that we only > > have one version under development at a time. > > > > One of the major brakes in doing this last release was deciding what > > to do with each and every commit on the master branch -- having a > > concrete policy and decision on this would definitely help committers > > decide when, what and where to cherry-pick changes! > > > > From 1.12.0 on, I'd like to propose maintaining *two* major versions > > (i.e. 1.12.x and 1.11.x). That would allow us to deprecate and modify > > APIs and give developers one whole major release to switch. The > > "older" major version would receive *only* bug and security fixes, the > > "newest" major version gets those as well as non-API breaking > > features. > > > > All work is committed to master, and the committer makes the decision > > how far to cherry-pick, or (in the absence of time) keeps the JIRA > > fixVersion up-to-date for someone to pick up the intention. > > > > That's just one suggestion that seems plausible to me! We can > > probably do better without much additional effort (on the limited > > resources we have). What do you think? > > > > All my best regards, Ryan > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Ryan Skraba <r...@skraba.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hello! While Avro doesn't have an official "end-of-life" statement or > > > policy, there is no active development on the 1.9 or 1.10 branch. > > > > > > Our current policy is to add major features to the next major release > > > (1.12.0) while bug fixes, CVEs and minor features will be backported > > > to the next minor release (1.11.3). > > > > > > I think we *should* have a policy in place, for projects that depend > > > on Avro to have a better visiblity. I will bring this up on the > > > dev@avro.apache.org mailing list -- please feel free to join the > > > discussion! > > > > > > All my best, Ryan > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 11:19 AM Pranav Kumar (EXT) via user > > > <u...@avro.apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share End of life/End of support detail or any EoS > > criteria that is followed for below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Avro version-1.9.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Pranav > > >
