> David makes a good point about making sure that we support 4.x to 6.0 > upgrades. Supporting live upgrades from every GA supported version <https://cassandra.apache.org/_/download.html> today seems obvious as a lazy consensus to me. Given how confusing our release versioning has been it's worth explicitly calling that out.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2025, at 10:33 AM, Aaron wrote: > +1 to 6.0 > > And David makes a good point about making sure that we support 4.x to 6.0 > upgrades. > > Thanks, > > Aaron > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 1:03 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> +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> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 6.0 >>>>> >>>>> - Scott >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> Mobile >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 10, 2025, at 1:34 PM, Jeremy Hanna <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> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 on 6.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2025, at 1:07 PM, Josh McKenzie <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.
