I've made my position clear, if there's no scope for further discussion I'll
add my vote.
Thanks.
________________________________
From: João Jandre <j...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 19:08
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Versioning
Hello Rohit,
> I think we need to break out the topics and discuss them separately.
Personally I wouldn't be able to work & vote this weekend, but I can try
to participate during work days next week. We can vote again if
required, but I think voting isn't required if consensus is achieved.
These topics are intertwined, I believe that discussing them separately
will hinder the discussions. Also, as we are changing a process that has
been followed for many years, voting is an important step to formalize
the changes.
> On #1: I don't think we follow semver [1] strictly anymore. Our
versioning scheme is currently A.B.C.D (where D is for security, C is
maintenance/path; but B is considered a major release, A relates to API
backward compatibility). To give some historical context - the original
authors started with semver because they needed something to base
versioning scheme on and followed it b/w 4.0 and 4.5; then starting
security releases I think around 2016-2017 we introduced the security
patch created our own versioning scheme & DB upgrade paths mechanisms
around it. With LTS [1] guidelines adopted a few years back, we created
a way for us to support new hypervisor support delivered in
maintenance/minor releases which often have DB changes (adding guest os
mappings, capabilities etc.) and any core infra blockers. For the most
part - for marketing purposes, in events, conferences, announcements etc
we consider "A.B" as a major ACS release (for example, we say 4.21 is
the next major LTS release...), and we refer to A.B.C as a
maintenance/minor release. (for example 4.20.1.0, or 4.19.3.0).
We do not follow strictly semver, as per the link you mentioned,
however, the same link specifies that the only change is the following:
---
<MAJOR>.<MINOR>.<NON-SECURITY PATCH>.<SECURITY PATCH> where NON-SECURITY
PATCH is incremented for all bug fix releases except those addressing a
CVE. The SECURITY PATCH is only incremented for security releases that
fix one or more CVEs.
---
The rest should be semver. Also regarding the page you mentioned, it
specifies that the MAJOR would be our 4, as it is the first number;
therefore, we cannot consider "A.B" the MAJOR, as it is a MINOR. Again,
the community has not been following its own guidelines and it seems
that there are confusions regarding the versioning. **This is why we
must discuss and solidify our process**.
> My view is, it's not in our community's best interest to introduce
severely disruptive changes (APIs for example) as we've built a momentum
of users, sub-projects and sister-projects that depend on CloudStack
(APIs). So, if we can accept that there will be never a major release
(from a semver PoV) disrupting the APIs, we can drop the "4." and call
the next set of releases 22, 23 etc. forking our version of "semver"
even further. If that's the extent of the proposal, I'm supportive of that.
> On a pedantic note, the proposed voting thread's subject is about
versioning process but it suggest that the proposer "will start another
thread regarding our version naming" - making it harder for community to
vote on something that's not well defined or proposed.
It seems that two different topics are being mixed here, on one hand we
have the versiong process, on the other we have the naming. They do go
hand in hand, but they can be discussed separately, I see that you have
an interest in changing our version naming, I do not oppose that;
however, I'm interested in the versioning process, this is what this
thread is about and why I want to create a new thread for version naming
discussion.
Regarding the disruptive changes, we have already been introducing these
types of changes, but as we have not been following a proper process,
these changes have been made to the MINOR release, and what is worse, a
lot of times users are not informed of such changes in advance.
Here are a few example of disruptive changes:
- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/9518. Changed the default
connection pool library. This was not communicated to the community and
we have caught problems caused by this change, where we had to revert to
the old library.
- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/7131. Updated the log
library. This change was announced in the MLs (see
https://lists.apache.org/thread/wnh2d0r3dyphzmc0c6rytj2mbd21z2gs) and
was explicit on release notes for example, but I still feel like we
could've communicated a bit better about the change, for example
notifying the deprecation of log4j 1.29 in the previous version. In any
case, this is a disruptive change that was not made in a MAJOR version
as defined by semver.
- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/8609. JRE Upgrade, removed
support for EL7. Again, this was communicated in the release notes, but
as far as I know we did not notify the users of the deprecation EL7 in
the previous versions.
> On #2: we already have a deprecation policy [1] which was led by
Rafael and we've used it already with quite a few deprecations; notably
the deprecation of legacy UI and introduction of the modern UI, where we
supported the legacy UI for two major releases until we removed it.
We do. But it allows removing features on minor versions; thus, it does
not follow semver.
> On #3: I don't think it's in our best interest to lose the ability to
have DB changes (both data & schema) in maintenance/minor & security
releases. The LTS/hypervisor support is a good example and also
optimisations, critical/security issues examples we've delivered in past
maintenance releases that required DB changes (both data & schema).
The exception for security changes has already been discussed and I
agree that it should remain an option to be used when necessary.
Regarding changing the database schema in minor versions, I believe it
is in the user's best interest to have such a guarantee; this way,
upgrading/downgrading from minor versions inside the same major would
pose no issues and could be done whenever needed. I think the cost of
waiting for the next major before having a possible optimization is
worth the cost of having a stable environment. Moreover, I am not
proposing to stop DB data changes (e.g. inserting/removing/altering
something in the database to normalize some inconsistency) in minor
versions, only schema changes.
Best regards,
João Jandre
On 5/9/25 09:19, Rohit Yadav wrote:
I think we need to break out the topics and discuss them separately. Personally I
wouldn't be able to work & vote this weekend, but I can try to participate
during work days next week. We can vote again if required, but I think voting isn't
required if consensus is achieved.
On #1: I don't think we follow semver [1] strictly anymore. Our versioning scheme is
currently A.B.C.D (where D is for security, C is maintenance/path; but B is considered a
major release, A relates to API backward compatibility). To give some historical context -
the original authors started with semver because they needed something to base versioning
scheme on and followed it b/w 4.0 and 4.5; then starting security releases I think around
2016-2017 we introduced the security patch created our own versioning scheme & DB upgrade
paths mechanisms around it. With LTS [1] guidelines adopted a few years back, we created a
way for us to support new hypervisor support delivered in maintenance/minor releases which
often have DB changes (adding guest os mappings, capabilities etc.) and any core infra
blockers. For the most part - for marketing purposes, in events, conferences, announcements
etc we consider "A.B" as a major ACS release (for example, we say 4.21 is the next
major LTS release...), and we refer to A.B.C as a maintenance/minor release. (for example
4.20.1.0, or 4.19.3.0).
My view is, it's not in our community's best interest to introduce severely disruptive changes
(APIs for example) as we've built a momentum of users, sub-projects and sister-projects that depend
on CloudStack (APIs). So, if we can accept that there will be never a major release (from a semver
PoV) disrupting the APIs, we can drop the "4." and call the next set of releases 22, 23
etc. forking our version of "semver" even further. If that's the extent of the proposal,
I'm supportive of that.
On a pedantic note, the proposed voting thread's subject is about versioning process but
it suggest that the proposer "will start another thread regarding our version
naming" - making it harder for community to vote on something that's not well
defined or proposed.
On #2: we already have a deprecation policy [1] which was led by Rafael and
we've used it already with quite a few deprecations; notably the deprecation of
legacy UI and introduction of the modern UI, where we supported the legacy UI
for two major releases until we removed it.
On #3: I don't think it's in our best interest to lose the ability to have DB changes (both
data & schema) in maintenance/minor & security releases. The LTS/hypervisor support
is a good example and also optimisations, critical/security issues examples we've delivered
in past maintenance releases that required DB changes (both data & schema).
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68720798
Regards.
________________________________
From: João Jandre <j...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 00:19
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Versioning
Hello, Rohit
I'm very sorry to hear that your country is at war. Do you think that if
we extend the voting to a full week, you can participate?
Regarding your comments:
1. Semver is very specific on how the version naming should be; it
should only contain three version numbers, not four. Furthermore, adding
breaking changes on minor versions is very much not following semver. I
would like to start using semver, but for this, we must change our
current processes and practices. This is why this thread was created.
2. Regarding the deprecation, we have a process, but it allows removing
features on minor versions; thus, it does not follow semver.
3. Regarding database changes, the proposal being voted is very clear
that there might be exceptions for security changes that necessitate
database schema changes. Regarding changing the database schema in minor
versions, I believe it is in the user's best interest to have such a
guarantee; this way, upgrading/downgrading from minor versions inside
the same major would pose no issues to the DB. Moreover, we should not
confuse DB schema changes with DB data changes (e.g.
inserting/removing/altering something in the database to normalize some
inconsistency)
Best regards,
João Jandre
On 5/8/25 09:42, Rohit Yadav wrote:
Sorry all - I'm busy at work but want to chime in after considering the thread
(plus my country's at war atm). I need more time and I wouldn't be able to vote
within 72 hrs.
On the face value - none of the three things needs voting on, we already use the semver
& have used deprecation process for components already, and I don't think it's in
community's best interest to lose the ability to deliver database-changes in
maintenance/minor & security releases.
Regards.
________________________________
From: João Jandre <j...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 22:40
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Versioning
Hi everyone,
As it seems we have no objections to the proposed changes to our
versioning, I'll be starting a voting thread to vote on the changes to
the versioning process that were discussed on this thread.
Once the first subject is decided (the process to follow and guide the
release process), I'll start another thread regarding the versioning
naming/pattern we will adopt.
Please note that I'm proposing that these changes only take effect
**after** 4.21 is released.
Best regards,
João Jandre
On 4/30/25 16:06, João Jandre wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to revisit the topic of versioning, particularly in light
of our last discussion (see
https://lists.apache.org/thread/hnzp6hnsjyj8593cf6tbgryt1s8z5glq). It
seems that most people here agree with the idea of transitioning to a
new major version (e.g., from 4.x to 5.0), or at the very least, are
not opposed to it.
However, I believe there are still some misunderstandings about the
reasoning behind major version changes. The number itself is not that
important; the key point is to establish a clear system for
introducing changes that break backwards compatibility. As René
pointed out, we currently do not have a formal mechanism for handling
such changes. As a result, we frequently introduce breaking changes in
minor releases, which means operators need to be aware that upgrading
to a new minor version could potentially disrupt compatibility and
make their lives more difficult when they need to roll back to a
previous release after an upgrade (e.g. if a rollback is needed after
a few days of an upgrade).
A formal versioning strategy (defining what constitutes a major,
minor, patch, and security release) would help improve the project’s
stability. It would also allow us to plan major changes more
effectively and communicate them clearly to the community.
I am aware that there has been some hesitation about establishing a
release schedule. To avoid further complications, I won’t suggest one
here, at least not until we have automated the release process.
With that in mind, I propose that we start adhering to the semantic
versioning (semver) system that we have outlined in our documentation
(https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS and
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up).
According to our current definitions, we have not had a true major
release in over 10 years, even though we have introduced breaking
changes in multiple minor releases during that time.
To align with semantic versioning, I suggest the following changes to
our versioning practices:
- API Changes: Any changes to APIs that break backwards compatibility
should only be made in major versions (e.g., 5.x.x, 6.x.x, etc.).
- Database Schema: Changes to the database schema should also be
introduced only in major versions.
- Feature Removal: We need to update the process of feature removal
(see
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68720798)
to ensure that features are only removed in major versions, after
having been announced in advance in a previous major version.
If everyone agrees with this approach, we can begin following semantic
versioning after the release of 4.21. This means we would elect a
Release Manager for the next major as soon as 4.21 is out. If no one
is interested in being the RM for the next major, I'll put myself
forward to do it. Moreover, I would propose at least one major release
per year, and I (and the folks on our side here) would be willing to
put the effort into being the RM for these releases if needed.
Regarding the next major naming (e.g., 5.0, 2025.0, 22.0, etc.) we can
have a separate voting to decide on it.
Looking forward to your thoughts and feedback.
Best regards,
João Jandre
