Bringing this back up. I don't think we have any reason to hold up renaming the version. We can have a separate discussion about what upgrade paths are supported, but let's at least address this one issue of version number so we can have consistent messaging. When i talk to people about the next release, I'd like to be consistent with what I call it, and have a unified voice as a project.
Jon On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 1:41 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > . > > >> If you mean only 4.1 and 5.0 would be online upgrade targets, I would >> suggest we change that to T-3 so you encompass all “currently supported” >> releases at the time the new branch is GAed. >> >> I think that's better actually, yeah. I was originally thinking T-2 from >> the "what calendar time frame is reasonable" perspective, but saying "if >> you're on a currently supported branch you can upgrade to a release that >> comes out" makes clean intuitive sense. That'd mean: >> >> 6.0: 5.0, 4.1, 4.0 online upgrades supported. Drop support for 4.0. API >> compatible guaranteed w/5.0. >> 7.0: 6.0, 5.0, 4.1 online upgrades supported. Drop support for 4.1. API >> compatible guaranteed w/6.0. >> 8.0: 7.0, 6.0, 5.0 online upgrades supported. Drop support for 5.0. API >> compatible guaranteed w/7.0. >> > > > > I like this. > >
