Let's keep this thread to just +1's on 6.0; I'll see about a proper isolated [DISCUSS] thread for my proposal above hopefully tomorrow, schedule permitting.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025, at 3:46 PM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: > +1 to 6.0 > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 1:38 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >> __ >> +1 to 6.0. >> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025, at 2:28 PM, Jon Haddad 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.
