...or like the end of January. Either way, feel free to ignore the "aside" :)
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:53 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kind of in the same place as Benedict/Aleksey. > > If we release a 5.1 in, let's say...March of next year, the number of 5.0 > users is going to be very minimal. Nobody is going to upgrade anything > important from now through the first half of January anyway, right? They're > going to be making sure their existing clusters aren't exploding. > > (We still want TCM/Accord to be available to people to test by Summit, but > that feels unrelated to whether we cut a 5.1 branch...) > > Aside: If I had to pick a month of the year to release software used by > large enterprises, it probably would be something like March instead of > December. I have no good research to back that up, of course... > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:19 PM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > >> To be clear, I’m not making an argument either way about the path >> forwards we should take, just concurring about a likely downside of this >> proposal. I don’t have a strong opinion about how we should proceed. >> >> On 23 Oct 2023, at 18:16, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> I agree. If we go this route we should essentially announce an immediate >> 5.1 alpha at the same time as 5.0 GA, and I can’t see almost anybody >> rolling out 5.0 with 5.1 so close on its heels. >> >> On 23 Oct 2023, at 18:11, Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> I’m not so sure that many folks will choose to go 4.0->5.0->5.1 path >> instead of just waiting longer for TCM+Accord to be in, and go 4.0->5.1 in >> one hop. >> >> Nobody likes going through these upgrades. So I personally expect 5.0 to >> be a largely ghost release if we go this route, adopted by few, just a >> permanent burden on the merge path to trunk. >> >> Not to say that there isn’t valuable stuff in 5.0 without TCM and Accord >> - there most certainly is - but with the expectation that 5.1 will follow >> up reasonably shortly after with all that *and* two highly anticipated >> features on top, I just don’t see the point. It will be another 2.2 release. >> >> >> On 23 Oct 2023, at 17:43, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> We discussed that at length in various other mailing threads Jeff - kind >> of settled on "we're committing to cutting a major (semver MAJOR or MINOR) >> every 12 months but want to remain flexible for exceptions when >> appropriate". >> >> And then we discussed our timeline for 5.0 this year and settled on the >> "let's try and get it out this calendar year so it's 12 months after 4.1, >> but we'll grandfather in TCM and Accord past freeze date if they can make >> it by October". >> >> So that's the history for how we landed here. >> >> 2) Do we drop the support of 3.0 and 3.11 after 5.0.0 is out or after >> 5.1.0 is? >> >> This is my understanding, yes. Deprecation and support drop is predicated >> on the 5.0 release, not any specific features or anything. >> >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, at 12:29 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:52 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> The TCM work (CEP-21) is in its review stage but being well past our >> cut-off date¹ for merging, and now jeopardising 5.0 GA efforts, I would >> like to propose the following. >> >> >> >> I think this presumes that 5.0 GA is date driven instead of feature >> driven. >> >> I'm sure there's a conversation elsewhere, but why isn't this date >> movable? >> >> >>
