I'm really interested in this thread, but don't see an update on where we landed in terms of backporting and also the amount of work involved. I'm all for backporting to 5.x minimally! I'm planning our 2026 work and where this discussion goes will really help me optimally plan, which is why I'm asking. Thanks!
On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 4:44 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems like the 4.1 branch would still require some work to cover > everything raised on this thread? Have anyone evaluated how much work that > can be? > > I agree porting to 4.1, but not 4.0 is kind of weird. Then probably we > better have it only in 5.0? > > Do people think it makes sense to create some kind of user survey around > this work, too? Posted in @user > > On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 9:00, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Otherwise it feels weird backporting to 4.1 but not 4.0, and backporting >> to both would increase the risk and maintenance burden. >> >> It would but by how much? >> >> 2 things jump out to me re: risk and maintenance: >> >> Risk: We kind of need to tackle the "version straddle w/schema table >> diffs is currently Bad and makes rollbacks manual and brittle" broadly; >> this feature is just one more example of that though it's a little >> exacerbated by discussing doing something like this in a patch release. The >> *ergonomics* of the "one-way-door without a human manually deleting >> columns" part holds true cross-MAJOR too. "Progress" here seems like it's >> either we handle this on a case-by-case basis w/flags to remove those >> schema entries on rollback (kinda ew), or more durably with an elegant >> solution in the long term, i.e. capabilities framework, though that doesn't >> answer the "we explode when schemas don't match" bit. >> >> Maintenance: maintaining this across 4 branches is clearly more toil than >> across 2. >> >> I'm personally kind of keen for us to tackle that Risk bit; I'd like all >> of us to be able to more freely consider making changes to schema tables >> w/out the complexity burden we have right now and the operator toil and >> risk that comes along with it. >> >> The maintenance toil bit - I have less opinions on. Kind of depends on >> how many people are on 4.0/4.1 right now that we'd expect to be on 4.1 for >> another year until 7.0 hits and whether we think they'd benefit from the >> feature (and contribute to bettering it) during that year I guess. >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, at 5:57 PM, Paulo Motta wrote: >> >> Otherwise it feels weird backporting to 4.1 but not 4.0, and backporting >> to both would increase the risk and maintenance burden. >> >> >>
