I am more in favor of bumping to 4.0. It is a rapid escalation, but we wouldn’t be the first open source project to switch to a model with Short major versions, as both Clang and Firefox have done so.
I also feel that, both from a semver perspective and as a user of other software, I expect breaking changes to bump the major version number. That said, this is not a hill I’m trying to die on. My focus is on the user experience, and if our users end up well informed of the breakages, then I will feel we have done our job, no matter what version number we stamp on it. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:57 PM Philip Zeyliger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Csaba! > > I would be fine with both proposals, with a slight preference to B. My > understanding is that you're going to expose a way to define overrides for > time zone definitions, so there will be pretty workable workarounds too. > > -- Philip > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Csaba Ringhofer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Folks! > > > > We had a discussion with a few people about the versioning of Impala > after > > 3.0. The motivation was that IMPALA-3307 (which replaces the timezone > > implementation in Impala, and contains some breaking changes) missed 3.0 > > and we are not sure about the version in which it can be released - is it > > 3.1 or 4.0? > > > > A. jumping to 4.0 would communicate clearly that the release contains > > braking changes - if the plan for Impala is to follow semantic > versioning, > > than this is the way to go > > > > B. releasing it in 3.1 would communicate that the change is too small > for a > > major version bump, and major versions are kept for BIG changes in Impala > > > > My personal preference is for B - if a breaking change is relatively > small > > and workarounds are possible + the community agrees, then it should be > > possible to release it in minor a version, while major versions could be > > kept for changes where switching Impala version needs large effort on the > > user's side (for example 2->3 jump needs new Java and Hadoop major > > version), or when a huge improvement is added to Impala which deserves > > extra attention. This is more of an aesthetic than a rational choice on > my > > side, so I am totally ok with semantic versioning too, if the community > > prefers it. > > >
