I’m in favor of this idea for all of the reasons Josh mentioned and I’m
happy to help out with the curation and maintenance. Consolidating these
efforts seems like a clear win to anyone who is already managing their own
fork of backports.

A couple of questions that come to mind:

1) What is the inclusion criteria for a patch to get backported?

2) What does the lifecycle of this branch look like? If we use the example
of a cassandra-5.1 branch, what happens to this branch after 6.0 is GA? I
think there should be some grace period after the next version is cut where
this branch is still active, but we probably don't need as long of a
support model as the "main" (i.e. 4.0, 4.1, 5.0, 6.0) releases.


On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 1:39 PM Rahul Singh (ANANT) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Makes sense. Does this become "LTS" ? or is this something else.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 04:03 PM Josh McKenzie wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 04:03 PM Josh McKenzie wrote:
>> Many large‑scale Cassandra users have had to maintain private feature
>> back-port forks (e.g., CEP‑37, compaction optimization, etc) for years on
>> older branches. That duplication adds risk and pulls time away from
>> upstream contributions which came up as a pain point in discussion at CoC
>> this year.
>> The proposal we came up with: an official, community‑maintained backport
>> branch (e.g. cassandra‑5.1) built on the current GA release that we pilot
>> for a year and then decide if we want to make it official. The branch would
>> selectively accept non‑disruptive improvements that meet criteria we define
>> together. There’s a lot of OSS prior art here (Lucene, httpd, Hadoop,
>> Kafka, Linux kernel, etc).
>> Benefits include reduced duplicated effort, a safer middle ground between
>> trunk and frozen GA releases, faster delivery of vetted features, and
>> community energy going to this branch instead of duplicated on private
>> forks.
>> If you’re interested in helping curate or maintain this branch - or have
>> thoughts on the idea - please reply and voice your thoughts.
>> ~Josh
>>
>
>
>

Reply via email to