+1 on my end about the Roadmap page and to start looking in the future again :-) I am also optimistic about the assumption of having 4.0 out in April :-) Exciting times
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 9:37, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > it would make sense to put that information on a *Roadmap* page > > That makes sense to me, and I'm looking forward to agreeing a roadmap. I > think it will be nice for the project to start properly looking to the > future again. > > On 01/04/2021, 14:06, "Benjamin Lerer" <benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > wrote: > > Thanks everybody. > > I opened CASSANDRA-16556 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16556> to update the > end > of support dates for the different versions. I assumed that we will > manage > to release 4.0-GA in April (otherwise I will re-update them ;-) ) > > Concerning the release cadence, it seems that we do not have a proper > place > to put that information on our website. In an offline discussion Mick > raised the point that it would make sense to put that information on a > *Roadmap > *page. That makes sense to me. I will trigger the roadmap discussion > next > week and once we agree on some roadmap, I propose to create a new page > for > it where I will include the information on the release cadence. > > I am fully open to another proposal. > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:24 AM Sam Tunnicliffe <s...@beobal.com> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > On 29 Mar 2021, at 15:41, Joseph Lynch <joe.e.ly...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > I am slightly concerned about removing support for critical bug > fixes > > > in 3.0 on a short time-frame (<1 year). I know of at least a few > major > > > installations, including ours, who are just now able to finish > > > upgrades to 3.0 in production due to the number of correctness and > > > performance bugs introduced in that release which have only been > > > debugged and fixed in the past ~2 years. > > > > > > I like the idea of the 3-year support cycles, but I think since > > > 3.0/3.11/4.0 took so long to stabilize to a point folks could > upgrade > > > to, we should reset the clock somewhat. What about the following > > > assuming an April 2021 4.0 cut: > > > > > > 4.0: Fully supported until April 2023 and high severity bugs until > > > April 2024 (2 year full, 1 year bugfix) > > > 3.11: Fully supported until April 2022 and high severity bugs until > > > April 2023 (1 year full, 1 year bugfix). > > > 3.0: Supported for high severity correctness/performance bugs until > > > April 2022 (1 year bugfix) > > > 2.2+2.1: EOL immediately. > > > > > > Then going forward we could have this nice pattern when we cut the > > > yearly release: > > > Y(n-0): Support for 3 years from now (2 full, 1 bugfix) > > > Y(n-1): Fully supported for 1 more year and supported for high > > > severity correctness/perf bugs 1 year after that (1 full, 1 bugfix) > > > Y(n-2): Supported for high severity correctness/bugs for 1 more > year (1 > > bugfix) > > > > > > What do you think? > > > -Joey > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:39 AM Benjamin Lerer > > > <benjamin.le...@datastax.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Thanks to everybody and sorry for not finalizing that email thread > > sooner. > > >> > > >> For the release cadence the agreement is:* one release every year > + > > >> periodic trunc snapshot* > > >> For the number of releases being supported the agreement is 3. > *Every > > >> incoming release should be supported for 3 years.* > > >> > > >> We did not reach a clear agreement on several points : > > >> * The naming of versions: semver versus another approach and the > name of > > >> snapshot versions > > >> * How long will we support 3.11. Taking into account that it has > been > > >> released 4 years ago does it make sense to support it for the > next 3 > > years? > > >> > > >> I am planning to open some follow up discussions for those points > in the > > >> coming weeks. > > >> > > >> When there is an agreement we should document the changes on the > webpage > > >>> and also highlight it as part of the 4.0 release material as > it's an > > >>> important change to the release cycle and LTS support. > > >>> > > >> > > >> It is a valid point. Do you mind if I update the documentation > when we > > have > > >> clarified the version names and that we have a more precise idea > of when > > >> 4.0 GA will be released? That will allow us to make a clear > message on > > when > > >> to expect the next supported version. > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:05 PM Paulo Motta < > pauloricard...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 to the yearly release cadence + periodic trunk snapshots + > support > > to 3 > > >>> previous release branches.. I think this will give some nice > > predictability > > >>> to the project. > > >>> > > >>> When there is an agreement we should document the changes on the > > webpage > > >>> and also highlight it as part of the 4.0 release material as > it's an > > >>> important change to the release cycle and LTS support. > > >>> > > >>> Em sex., 5 de fev. de 2021 às 18:08, Brandon Williams < > > dri...@gmail.com> > > >>> escreveu: > > >>> > > >>>> Perhaps on my third try... keep three branches total, > including 3.11: > > >>>> 3.11, 4, next. Support for 3.11 begins ending after next+1, is > what > > >>>> I'm trying to convey. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:58 PM Brandon Williams < > dri...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Err, to be clear: keep 3.11 until we have 3 other branches. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:57 PM Brandon Williams < > dri...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm +1 on 3 branches, and thus ~3 years of support. So in the > > >>>>>> transition, would we aim to keep 3.11 until after 4.0 and a > > successor > > >>>>>> are released? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 11:44 AM Benjamin Lerer > > >>>>>> <benjamin.le...@datastax.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Are we also trying to reach a consensus here that a release > > >>> branch > > >>>> should > > >>>>>>>> be supported for ~3 years (i.e. that we are aiming to limit > > >>>> ourselves to 3 > > >>>>>>>> release branches plus trunk)? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 3 release branches make sense to me +1 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 6:15 PM Michael Semb Wever < > m...@apache.org> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I believe that there is an appetite for the bleeding edge > > >>>> snapshots where > > >>>>>>>>> we do not guarantee stability and that the semver > discussion is > > >>>> not > > >>>>>>>>> finished yet but I would like us to let those discussions > go > > >>> for > > >>>> some > > >>>>>>>>> follow up threads. > > >>>>>>>>> My goal with this thread was to reach an agreement on a > release > > >>>> cadence > > >>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>> the version we will officially support after 4.0. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> My impression is that most people agree with *one release > every > > >>>> year* so > > >>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>> would like to propose it as our future release cadence. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> +1 to branching off one release branch a year. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Are we also trying to reach a consensus here that a release > > >>> branch > > >>>> should > > >>>>>>>> be supported for ~3 years (i.e. that we are aiming to limit > > >>>> ourselves to 3 > > >>>>>>>> release branches plus trunk)? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> +1 to flexible dates. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> +1 to non-GA non-branched releases along the way. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Jeremiah, I have nothing to add to your post. I think you > did a > > >>>> fantastic > > >>>>>>>> job of combining how semver would work in combination > Benedict's > > >>>> focus on > > >>>>>>>> cadence and reducing the community burden. It also helped > > >>>> highlight the > > >>>>>>>> different discussions to be had, that should be had > separately. > > >>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>>> Benjamin for bringing it back to what was your original > questions > > >>>> (sorry > > >>>>>>>> for the derail): > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 1) What release cadence do we want to use for major/minor > > >>>> versions? > > >>>>>>>>> 2) How do we plan to ensure the quality of the releases? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
