Hello, René, All
This discussion has been brought up multiple times this year, and I
totally agree with you, we are due for a new major release. I would
invite you to read the recent threads created about it:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/lh45w55c3jmhm7w2w0xgdvlw78pd4p87,
https://lists.apache.org/thread/4zs8d15ghvvwwro46ry5zjf8fn8x0t88,
https://lists.apache.org/thread/o6o9h3qp8gqrpq4v7o81tl6vp51tkjhg,
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/discussions/8970 and
https://lists.apache.org/thread/6v0w49gp0fwtp53so757mx6nf34vpg81.
From the marketing side, it's clear to me that operators are confused
by this lack of direction of the project, with no major versions for 10
years, an outsider may think that the project is dead or extremely
stable, both of which are false: we introduce plenty of new features and
there is much work to be done still. Moreover, it hurts the project to
have minor versions which break compatibility.
Furthermore, we have plenty of technical reasons to do so. I'll repeat
below my view on this topic, as I posted on the last thread about it:
I think we should really sit down and discuss the direction that we want
to bring the project. We should build a consensus on a versioning schema
that will come with the proper mechanisms of deprecating/removing
features, as well as introducing breaking changes.
Looking at those discussions and Daniel's topics of discussions (see
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/discussions/8970#discussioncomment-9754199)
here would be my proposal:
1. **Looking at our history, what would be the ideal cadence of major
releases for our context and why?** On average, we take 9 months to
release a new minor version. Considering that our 'minor' versions are
where our major changes happen, we could take this cadence of minor
versions and transfer it into major ones. Furthermore, as we will have
mechanisms to introduce breaking changes (and those tend to take time),
we should add some padding on those 9 months and make it 1 year. We also
do not need to decide on a specific month to release the version, we
could have a quarter (Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4) that is when the version is scheduled
to release. That way, we will have some predictability on when the
release is out, but also some flexibility.
2. **How and when should we define the RM for each major?** For the
'how', I like the current system of someone volunteering and the
community voting on them; I don't see any reason to change this. As for
the 'when', the week following a new release, we should already have a
new RM to guide the next one. This way, we avoid having an aimless
project for too long.
3. **How should we introduce disruptive changes and remove
compatibility?** For our first major release, I think we should announce
these changes as soon as the discussions about versioning are over and
introduce these changes on that release. But for the future, the better
method would be: on one major release, we announce the disruptive
changes and deprecate the necessary code; on the next one we introduce
the changes.
4. **What are the community's common goals?** From our discussions, it
seems like a part of the community wants to keep the project as is and
not introduce too many breaking changes. However, we also have another
part of the community that wants to evolve the project and try to make
it even better. As always with a community we should strive to build a
consensus on changes, if they should or not happen. We could have an
annual discussion planned to map what are the next year's goals, as well
as decide on things that should not change (at least at the time). This
discussion could be held at the start of a new major release cycle so
that the RM has a north to follow and steer the community efforts. I
think that one common goal that we should try to achieve is the creation
of an automated release process. We could create a pipeline that does
most (or all) the release process so that we only have to approve it
(and tweak it if needed) before releasing.
5. **Regarding minor releases, should we flexibilize it more or be more
rigid?** I think we should concentrate our big and new features on the
major versions; while tweaks and bug fixes would go on the minor
releases. This way, we can have more stable minor releases that do not
introduce too much stuff at a time. Focusing on the major releases for
new features will allow us to better test them and do better quality
control.
Best regards,
João Jandre
On 12/5/24 14:20, Rene Moser wrote:
Dear CloudStack developers
More than 10 years have passed since the release of 4.0.0, and for a
long time we kept 4 as the major version. The minor version is now at
20, but the word ‘minor’ is not correct: each new ‘minor’ version has
many new features and a lot of work from you has gone into it. That's
a nice constant in the ever-changing software world!
A few years ago (and I'm not entirely innocent of this) we introduced
another digit in the version number. I still think, it was and is a
good decision.
But I wonder how much longer we want to keep this 4? Wouldn't it be
time (as with the Linux kernel, by the way) to think about increasing
the major version every few years before we run out of numbers?
Even though there may not be a technical reason, it is a ‘sign’ or
marketing that the development of CloudStack is progressing.
CloudStack 5! What do you think?
Regards
René
