> 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. That's... a good point. If we end up on a cadence of major's in December (since we slipped to then for 4.1 and inherit that from that calendar year "pressure") we're setting ourselves up to release right in the largest consistent change-freeze window I know of for most users.
> It will be another 2.2 release. Let me live on with the stories I tell myself about the hordes of Windows users that appreciated Windows support before the Storage Engine rewrite, thank you very much. :D On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, at 1:57 PM, Caleb Rackliffe wrote: > ...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?
