nice to see this discussion being had again and sorry to be late in replying João,
I see no replies have come forward yet. Let's add a new https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/discussions/new/choose for this as well. I still feel my proposal is good and should have been applied. but we can gather all kinds of proposals in one place and get to some kind of improvement someday. One point of criticism on your proposal, though not a breaking point, is that it doesn't guarantee backwards compatibility, something we have always maintained so far (through upgrade paths). Not being chained to old to technical debt is good, but it should not leave people behind ;) We do have a hardly ever used procedure to deprecate old plugins for instance. we should think about applying that to API and other namings as well. regards, On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:10 PM João Jandre Paraquetti <j...@scclouds.com.br> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I had posted this message on another thread, but following Rohit's > advice I've decided to create a new one for it. That being said, I have > another proposal for the versioning scheme. Instead of dropping the "X" > on our X.Y.Z.N, we can set a fixed schedule (that can be further > discussed) for the version changes: > > - Every two years, we release a major version (X), which can contain > changes that break backward compatibility, such as (but not limited to): > removing unused/useless APIs, renaming APIs, and changing the default > behavior of features. These changes must be discussed with the devs and > be properly communicated to the community (via API deprecation, for > example) at least one minor version before the major release; > - Every semester, we release a minor version (Y) of the current major > (X) version, these can contain new features/APIs, as long as the > backward compatibility is maintained; also, feature/API deprecation > should happen on these versions; > - Every 2/3 months, we release patch versions (Z), that fix any bugs > that were released with the major and minor versions, these versions > should not contain any new features; > - In extreme cases (such as with security issues) we work on and release > security versions (N); > > The proposed schedule is only a sketch that can be worked on. However I > believe that the project can benefit from: > 1. A fixed release schedule; > 2. A mechanism to introduce disruptive changes, so that the project can > evolve and not be chained to the same features/API/limitation/technical > debts forever. > > Furthermore, having a schedule allows us to have a project roadmap, that > outlines the future deprecations, changes and big features. > > Best Regards, > > João Jandre. > -- Daan
