+1 to 6.0 Berenguer Blasi <berenguerbl...@gmail.com> 于2025年4月11日周五 13:53写道：
> +1 6.0 > On 10/4/25 23:57, David Capwell wrote: > > +1 to 6.0 > Strong +1 to T-3, we should support 4.0/4.1 to 6.0 upgrades. > > On Apr 10, 2025, at 2:18 PM, C. Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> > <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote: > > +1 6.0 > > - Scott > > — > Mobile > > On Apr 10, 2025, at 1:34 PM, Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> > <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 for 6.0 for TCM/Accord changes, making it easier to make a case to > upgrade dependencies like the Java/Python versions. > > On Apr 10, 2025, at 3:24 PM, Bernardo Botella > <conta...@bernardobotella.com> <conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: > > +1 on 6.0 > > On Apr 10, 2025, at 1:07 PM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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. > > > > >
