Do we want to manage more versions than we do now? Why don’t we simply align these things to majors, like we’ve typically tried to anyway?
I think it’s anyway better to decide on a strategy and find a versioning scheme that matches it, rather than to look for a strategy that matches our current versioning scheme. > On 25 Sep 2018, at 03:07, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > >> I'm totally spitballing here on possible uses of meaningful minors. > > Continuing the splitballing… > > What about aligning native protocol or sstable format changes with the minor > version? > > >> Regardless, the OP's statement that new features and improvements should go >> to 4.0.x seems wrong > > Yeah, I instinctively thought features and improvements would be moved to > either 4.x or 5.x (not to any subsequent patch version 4.0.x). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
