I am in favor of the LTS release schedule. I find that having a more structured but still flexible plan for releases benefits both the users of accumulo and developers as it gives us more defined trajectory on how to reach certain goals.
My only issue with some LTS release projects is that sometimes the project feels more stagnant since major updates are generally slowed in favor of supporting the stable release instead of the non-LTS releases. Though with this being a open-source and collaborative project, I don't worry about that part too much. On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:28 AM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems fine to me. > > Any expectations on how upgrades work within an LTS release? How about > across LTS releases? > > Some specific situations to mull over: > > * Can rolling upgrade in an LTS release (to new patch version) with no > downtime. (e.g. 1.9.1 to 1.9.3) > * Can any LTS release (1.9.1) be guaranteed to upgrade to a later LTS > release (2.3.1)? > * What about rolling back in an LTS release (e.g. 2.3.2 back to 2.3.1 > after some bug is found) > > Not looking for immediate answers, but it would be good to define the > expectations you have around what we want Accumulo to be able to do > (ignoring the fact that bugs will certainly arise around > upgrades/downgrades). > > On 10/30/19 9:00 PM, Christopher wrote: > > Following up from the discussion at > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/560bfe8d911be5b829e6250a34dfa1ace0584b24251651be1c77d724@%3Cdev.accumulo.apache.org%3E > > > > I think we should adopt this LTS concept: > > > > LTS releases: > > * Designate a new LTS line every 2 years (designation communicates > > intent to support/patch) > > * Target patch releases to LTS lines for 3 years > > * EOL previous LTS line when the new one has been available for 1 year > > > > non-LTS releases: > > * Periodic releases that aren't expected to be supported with patch > releases > > * Can still create patch releases, but only until the next LTS/non-LTS > > release line (typically only for critical bugs.... because we won't > > keep a maintenance branch around for non-LTS... instead, we'll roll > > bugfixes into the next release, or branch off the tag for a critical > > bug) > > * non-LTS releases are EOL as soon as the next LTS/non-LTS release > > line is created > > > > Transition plan: > > > > * Define LTS on the downloads page of the website > > * Designate 1.9 as first (and currently only) LTS release line > > * Mark the LTS expected EOL date on the downloads page next to the LTS > > releases (to the month... we don't need to get too granular/pedantic) > > > > What this proposal does *not* do is determine how frequently we > > release. It *only* determines which versions we will designate as LTS. > > So, this doesn't bind us to any fixed release schedule, and we can > > release as frequently (or infrequently) as our community wishes > > (though I hope the non-LTS releases will occur more frequently, as > > they can take more creative risks). But, the main point of this > > proposal is that every two years, we'll designate a new release that > > will take over as our main "supported line" that will be low-risk, and > > more stable over time. The 1-year overlap for people to upgrade from > > one LTS to the next in this plan is pretty useful, too, I think. > > > > Here's an example set of hypothetical releases (except 1.9.x and > > 2.0.0, which are real) under this plan: > > > > * LTS (2018): 1.9.0 -> 1.9.1 -> 1.9.2 -> ... -> EOL(2021) > > * non-LTS (2018-2020): 2.0.0 -> 2.1.0 -> 2.1.1 (critical bug fix) -> > 2.2.0 > > * LTS (2020): 2.3.0 -> 2.3.1 -> 2.3.2 -> ... -> EOL(2023) > > * non-LTS (2020-2022): 2.4.0 -> 2.5.0 -> 3.0.0 > > * LTS (2022): 3.1.0 -> 3.1.1 -> 3.1.2 -> ... -> EOL(2025) > > > > This LTS proposal isn't perfect and doesn't solve all possible issues, > > but I think it establishes the groundwork for future release > > plans/schedules and helps frame discussions about future releases, > > that we can work through later if needed. > > > > If there's general consensus on the basic proposal here, I can start > > updating the website after 72 hours (lazy consensus) to add the LTS > > definition and mark things on the downloads page, accordingly. If it > > turns into a significant discussion, I'll hold off on anything until > > the discussion points are resolved. If there's disagreement that can't > > be resolved, I'll start a more formal vote later (or give up due to > > lost motivation, worst case :smile:). > > > > -- > > Christopher > > >
