1. Where can I find the JEP for this, that explains pros, cons and 
motivation of (i.e. what does Jenkins want to achieve with) this change?
2. -1 for anything else than ISO-based dates, if any change is actually 
needed.

> I don't see the difference in marketing boost between 3.x and year based 
version.  In both cases, the users will see a significant change to the 
version number and will evaluate the meaning of that significant change to 
the version number.

+100

> Moving to 3.0 would indicate to me a new major release, regardless of 
knowing the current version number; whereas moving to 2027.1 I could assume 
is just a standard incremental change from 2026.x

Fully agree, this change seems confusing to me, hence I'd like to learn 
more about the actual need/motivation.

On Wednesday, 4 February 2026 at 18:57:14 UTC+1 Daniel Beck wrote:

>
>
> > On 4. Feb 2026, at 00:34, 'Jesse Glick' via Jenkins Developers <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > Call a trunk release 2026.04.20 and you can release on any day you 
> choose, not bound by a weekly schedule. If you cut a maintenance branch 
> from that, its releases would be 2026.04.20.1, 2026.04.20.2, etc. The next 
> “LTS” line (I would debate the accuracy of the “long-term” phrasing) would 
> be something like 2026.07.16.x.
>
> Lacking certainty over what the next version number is going to be and 
> adding an additional version segment both seem like changes requiring 
> rework around the actual releases (update-center, changelog generator, 
> etc.) for unclear benefits. Additionally it would prevent regression fix 
> re-releases the same day. Out of all the options discussed here, this looks 
> like the least desirable.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/00ac1586-e37e-4978-99e2-6ffd88910e42n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to