+1 with 20.0 5.0 sounds like a leap with lots of significant changes. Unfortunately it has not been discussed what needs to be done. 20.0 (or 24.0) looks better.
Wei On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 12:01, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > João, > I think we should not consider 5.0, but go to 20,0 that is more in > line with what we've actually been doing (semantic versioning from the > second digit) > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:53 AM Nux <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > > > > LGTM! > > > > On 2024-01-19 19:19, João Jandre Paraquetti wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I agree that our current versioning schema doesn't make much sense, as > > > "minors" introduce pretty big features; even backward incompatibilities > > > are introduced in minor versions sometimes. > > > > > > As the current plan is to have 4.20 by June, I think we should stick to > > > it and still have the next "minor", and make it the last minor version > > > of the major 4. After so much time in the same major version, we should > > > plan something relevant before changing it, and June 2024 is a bit of a > > > tight schedule for that. > > > > > > I think that we should plan to move to version 5.0.0, we could set the > > > release date to the end of 2024 or the start (January) of 2025; by > > > doing that, we have plenty of time for planning and developing amazing > > > features for version 5, while also preparing a cleanup of our current > > > APIs. For instance, we are working on the following major developments: > > > KVM differential snapshots/backups without needing extra software; > > > theme management system (white label portal for ACS); native > > > snapshot/backup for VMware (without needing Veeam) to make it similar > > > to what ACS does with XenServer and KVM; Operators backup (which are > > > different from end-user backups); and many other items. > > > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > João Jandre. > > > > > > On 1/19/24 10:39, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > >> devs, PMC, > > >> > > >> as we are closing in on 4.19 I want to propose that we drop the 4. in > > >> our versioning scheme. We've been discussing 5 but no real initiatives > > >> have been taken. Nowadays big features go into our "minor" > > >> dot-releases. In my opinion this warrants promoting those version to > > >> the status of major and dropping the 4.. > > >> > > >> technically this won't be an issue as 20 > 4 and out upgrade scheme > > >> supports a step like that. > > >> > > >> any thoughts? > > >> > > > > -- > Daan >
