+1 on calling it 6.0. I assume JDK 21 may lead to removal of JDK 11 which is breaking change (people need to upgrade to the common JDK version - 17 before upgrading to the next release)
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 14:40, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: > +1, I am also getting questions about the versioning recently and people > themselves do not know what to call the next version like. > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 8:28 PM Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com> > wrote: > >> 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. >>> >>>
