> > Regarding the versioning scheme, if we follow the versioning scheme we > have defined "by the book" then TCM/Accord would belong to a 6.0 version, > which I have to admit feels a bit weird but it would signal to the user > community that a major change is being introduced. I don't feel strongly > about this so would be fine with a 5.1 even though it would be a departure > from the new versioning scheme we have agreed upon. >
It can be 5.1 as there's no upgrade-compatibility breakages in TCM/Accord. Sure, some like big shiny new numbers for new features and new APIs. But if we follow the online upgrade-compatibility approach, clusters will be able to upgrade from any 4.x to 5.1, therefore from the operators PoV the "6" is not required. I had a chat with Sam offline about this. There's a small change in how the PropertyFileSnitch works and removing the ability to change a node's rack/dc once joined. It's been suggested to enforce these in 5.0 (with simple assertions). Aside from my desire to make our semver consistent to just upgrade-compatibility, I'm in favour of sticking to our general messaging the past year that Accord will be available in Cassandra 5. (Introducing a new major number 6 here IMHO hurts more than helps.)
