Hi, From my CS starter point of view, I agree with John's comment. I would really like to see the next major version with a code & architecture clean-up, especially producing a code architecture in the direction of the Java9 Jigsaw modularity. It would be sad not to take the next specifications into account. For the dates, it's good to produce periodically a new release for the 4.X but I don't see how putting one on the first 5.x version can be done before defining what will be it.
Marco -- To introduce myself, I joined Exoscale a few months ago to work on CS code base to suit their needs. > On 15 Jun 2016, at 11:31, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > > I like this discussion. But, my original question was not about what should > the next release number be? > > i was checking if anyone working on anything big and hence want the next > release to be 5.0? > > ~Rajani > > <http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/> > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> maybe I should have answered here instead of the other thread :S >> >> I am all with John on this. I can not judge the dates but the overall ideas >> are spot on. >> >> I now see the API weren't mentioned in this thread I think they should. >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:53 AM, ilya <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree and support John's comments below. >>> >>> Regards >>> ilya >>> >>> On 6/14/16 2:44 PM, John Burwell wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Completely agree with Daan. Per semantic versioning, a major revision >>> increase must introduce a backwards incompatible change in the public >> API, >>> removal of one of more supported devices, reduction in the list of >>> supported distributions. I agree that when we require Java8+, drop >> Ubuntu >>> 12.04 support, drop support for an old hypervisor version, etc, we will >>> need to increment the major revision to reflect the fact that the release >>> is not backwards compatible. >>>> >>>> For 4.10 and LTS 4.9.0_1, I see it as critical that we support running >>> on either Java7 or Java8. In particular, producing an LTS release that >>> only supports a JVM that has been unsupported for nearly 18 months would >>> make it DOA in many shops. >>>> >>>> It seems like it would make sense to have a 5.0.0 release that removed >>> support for a number of legacy components (e.g. Xen 6.0 possibly 6.2, >>> Java7, CentOS 5, etc), as well as, internal improvements (e.g. simplified >>> configuration). The focus of this release would be to reduce the >> footprint >>> of codebase, as well as, make a set of backwards incompatible changes >> that >>> further decouples plugins from core. We would then plan for a 6.0.0 in >>> 4Q2017 to introduce further architectural changes and API revisions. The >>> advantage to this approach is that it breaks up the large refactorings >> and >>> architectural design changes — allowing us to gain velocity by removing >>> legacy components, reducing the risk of these changes, and providing user >>> benefit earlier. Based on the release plan I previously proposed we have >>> the following releases remaining in 2016 and in early 2017: >>>> >>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016 >>>> * 4.11 releasing on or about 23 October 2016 >>>> * 4.12 releasing on or about 18 December 2016 >>>> * 4.13 release on or about 5 February 2017 >>>> >>>> 4.12 seems to be the sweet spot in the schedule to cut the 5.0.0 >> release >>> described above. It would give us sometime to plan and gain consensus >>> around the changes in both the user and dev communities. It would also >>> allow the second LTS release to be based on 5.0.0 — allowing both release >>> cycles to take advantage of the reduced support requirements and Java8 >>> language features. Based on this proposal, the releases above would >> change >>> to the following: >>>> >>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016 >>>> * 4.11 releasing on or about 23 October 2016 >>>> * 5.0.0 releasing on or about 18 December 2016 >>>> * 5.1.0 release on or about 5 February 2017 >>>> >>>> I am in the process of moving my proposal into the wiki. If this >>> approach is acceptable, I will reflect it there, and open a thread to >>> discuss 5.0.0. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -John >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> john.burw...@shapeblue.com >>>> www.shapeblue.com >>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK >>>> @shapeblue >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 Daan. >>>>> >>>>> My recollection was that major version number changes were only to be >>> triggered by breaks in backward compatibility (API). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Paul Angus >>>>> >>>>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com >>>>> www.shapeblue.com >>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK >>>>> @shapeblue >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: 14 June 2016 14:47 >>>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>>>> Cc: Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: 4.9+ release >>>>> >>>>> You know that would require more then one byte for our minor version, >>> Will. >>>>> I would be very pleased to go to 5.0 before that time. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Daan is just trying to get us to version 4.256. :P >>>>>> >>>>>> *Will STEVENS* >>>>>> Lead Developer >>>>>> >>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts >>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* >> tw >>>>>> @CloudOps_ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Daan Hoogland >>>>>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> -1 to what Wido said. None of those points warant a major release >>>>>>> number upgrade. these should all be in 4.10, -.11, -12 etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> major incompatibilities like API refactor, dropping backend support >>>>>>> for this or that hyporvisor or DB refactor are the things that >>>>>>> warrant 5.0, IMNSHO >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Will Stevens >>>>>>> <williamstev...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1. :) >>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2016 5:07 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Op 14 juni 2016 om 10:55 schreef Rajani Karuturi < >>>>>> raj...@apache.org >>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4.10 or 5.0? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would say 4.10 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We are in the 4.* release cycle from a long time. >>>>>>>>>> Just wanted to check if anyone is planning on major changes >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> warrants >>>>>>>>>> 5.0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5.0 should imho be: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Java 8 >>>>>>>>> - Ubuntu 16.04 / systemd support >>>>>>>>> - Drop support for older libvirt versions (KVM) >>>>>>>>> - Some killer feature(s) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wido >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ~Rajani >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Daan >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Daan >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan >>
