+1 on EOL. On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 7:32 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 to EOL'ing branch-1 and all other branch-1.x too (if they are still > active at all) > > > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 8:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > EOL of branch-1 doesn’t mean we take down the 1.6.0 release. It would be > > fine to leave that in place. That can be a separate, future, discussion, > > although if branch-1 becomes EOL its eventual removal would be certain. > The > > question is really if we plan to maintain branch-1 going forward. Based > on > > lack of interest and demand in releasing it, there does not seem reason > to. > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2021, at 7:51 PM, Reid Chan <reidchan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > My only concern is about the performance, once in a while there'll be > > > some emails like "2.x.y is slower than 1.x.y". > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ? > > >> > > >> There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond > > >> occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibility > > >> guidelines, branch-1 commits must be compatible with Java 7, and the > > range > > >> of acceptable versions of third party dependencies is also restricted > > due > > >> to Java 7 compatibility requirements. Most developers are writing code > > with > > >> Java 8+ idioms these days. For that reason and because the branch-1 > code > > >> base is generally aged at this point, all but trivial (or lucky!) > > backports > > >> require substantial changes in order to integrate adequately. Let me > > also > > >> observe that branch-1 artifacts are not fully compatible with Java 11 > or > > >> later. (The shell is a good example of such issues: The version of > > >> jruby-complete required by branch-1 is not compatible with Java 11 and > > >> upgrading to the version used by branch-2 causes shell commands to > error > > >> out due to Ruby language changes.) > > >> > > >> We can a priori determine there is insufficient motivation for > > production > > >> of release artifacts for the PMC to vote upon. Otherwise, someone > would > > >> have done it. We had 12 releases from branch-2 derived code in 2019, > 13 > > >> releases from branch-2 derived code in 2020, and so far we have had 3 > > >> releases from branch-2 derived code in 2021. In contrast, we had 8 > > releases > > >> from branch-1 derived code in 2019, 0 releases from branch-1 in 2020, > > and > > >> so far 0 releases from branch-1 in 2021. > > >> > > >> * 2021202020191.x0282.x31312* > > >> > > >> If there is someone interested in continuing branch-1, now is the time > > to > > >> commit. However let me be clear that simply expressing an abstract > > desire > > >> to see continued branch-1 releases will not be that useful. It will be > > >> noted, but will not have much real world impact. Apache is a > do-ocracy. > > In > > >> the absence of intrinsic motivation of project participants, which is > > what > > >> we seem to have here, you will need to do something: Fix the > > compatibility > > >> issues, if any between the last release of 1.x and the current > branch-1 > > >> head; fix any failing and flaky unit tests; produce release artifacts; > > and > > >> submit those artifacts to the PMC for voting. Or, convince someone > with > > >> commit rights and/or PMC membership to undertake these actions on your > > >> behalf. > > >> > > >> Otherwise, I respectfully submit for your consideration, it is time to > > >> declare branch-1 and all 1.x code lines EOL, simply acknowledging > what > > has > > >> effectively already happened. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards, > > >> Andrew > > >> > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > >> decrepit hands > > >> - A23, Crosstalk > > >> > > >
