I'm in the favour of keeping the 4.x going because no API compatibility is broken, and as long as we are following semver there is no need. Calling a 4.x a 5.x just for the sake of bumping versions may cause some perception issue.
Removal of unsupported/poc/incomplete features, plugins including APIs should not constitute breaking of compatibility. Several network and hypervisor plugins are still in poc/incomplete/unmaintained state. Unless the API layer, and perhaps DB layer is re-architected there is no point in calling the next version 5.x as long as semver is followed. In my opinion, the next major version 5.0 should have a restful versioned API layer, a new DB+upgrade framework that may support multiple db servers, a new UI, sandboxed plugin framework (right now a plugin can do anything it wants to say the cloud db), a new agent-clustering framework (the current low level nio and rpc code goes away), a distributed message bus and locking service (that we thought to introduce in 4.2,4.3 but incomplete), and refactor the networking/VR layer with a new VR. Not to mention cleanup some technical debt. The keywords being major architectural and api/integrational changes. Some of this maybe on-going, but we'll get to 5.x with patience over time. Regards, Rohit Yadav ________________________________ From: Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:15:29 AM To: users; dev Subject: Why CloudStack 5 I decided whether to write it several weeks thinking about the stones and rotten potatoes, but still decided to do that. Hope it will not raise the stress level. Colleagues and ACS leaders, I would like to initiate the discussion. Why go to CS5 rather than stay with 4.XX. Some thoughts are: 1. According to the versioning guide, the first number stands for radical changes like if the community decided to go from current ORM to Hibernate. I don't see the capabilities for such changes and there are no intentions for the implementation. 2. I can realize that we 'stuck' with '4.XX' and the marketing can be disappointing from that point of view. Then, OK, let's just skip the first number "4." and release, ACS 13.X, 14.X, 15.X and so on. Every version will receive new impressing version number and everyone could be happy about that. Going to version "5" currently looks like as an intention to refresh but with very poor motivation. At least to me. The discussion is strongly welcome. -- With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev Bitworks LLC Cell RU: +7-923-414-1515 Cell USA: +1-201-257-1512 WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com Amadeus House, Floral Street, London WC2E 9DPUK @shapeblue
