oh! almost forgot. We should get user@accumulo into this conversation sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if it's better ot just copy them in to this thread or do it as a follow up once we have more of an idea of what "EOL" means for them.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > +1 to making sure we have a 1.5.3 before stop dev > > I'd like to make sure we get through some testing of 1.5 -> 1.7 upgrade > testing before declaring dev over, just to give people more assurance that > they can upgrade off of the version. > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> How do we want to EOL 1.5? >> >> Personally, I was thinking (soon after 1.7.0 is released): >> * Release and tag 1.5.3 >> * Remove 1.5 branch to focus active development on newer versions >> * Be willing to branch from the 1.5.3 tag to rapidly release a 1.5.4 >> in response to critical bugs >> >> My biggest concerns are: >> 1) We turn exhausted people off by doing burdensome release testing, >> which delays bugfixes in 1.5, and >> 2) We get into a situation where 1.5.3 has some bugs that we never >> fix, which sends a confusing message to stick with 1.5.2. >> >> There's also the concern that there's a fair amount of work that was >> put into 1.5.3, and I'd hate to have those contributions not be >> available to users of 1.5. >> >> I figure that so long as we're willing to fix critical bugs, we can >> formally cease active development (EOL), without going so far as to >> say that 1.5 users are completely screwed if a critical bug is >> identified. >> >> What I'm describing isn't really an EOL date, so much as an EOL period >> which begins when we cease active development on 1.5, and ends >> organically at some arbitrary point in the future when people stop >> reporting critical bugs (or we reach a point where maintaining it is >> too costly... a sort of "EOL-2"). >> >> Another way to look at what I'm suggesting is switch from a "sustained >> development" model to a "branch to fix and release" model, where >> patch/bugfix releases are more narrowly scoped and can occur more >> rapidly, on demand. >> >> Thoughts? Alternatives? Variations? Objections? >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> > > > > -- > Sean > -- Sean
