+1
(non-binding)
I'm in favor of the LTS proposal as it stands. It provides a clear
way for our development and release teams to signal to users the
expected life of an Accumulo release. It also puts in place a
basic framework in terms of what we consider reasonable windows
for patching and support. It also gives developers an avenue to
run some of the more creative experiments on non LTS lines without
affecting stability of LTS releases.
Totally agree that this is likely going to be an evolving effort
as we find what works well here. That said, this is a great
starting point.
One question that I did have (especially being new in the area) is
whether we have any dependencies that themselves offer support for
shorter periods of time than our (3-year) LTS window. If so, does
that mean that we might be on the hook for any issues discovered
with such dependencies?
Thanks,
Nikhil
On Thu, Oct 31 2019, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
I am in favor of the LTS idea because I think it makes it more
efficient for everyone to easily come together and focus their
efforts
in the same direction for the benefit of everyone.
I think this is a really good starting plan for LTS. Overtime
we will
probably find issues with the plan and we can modify the plan as
we
go. I can help write up the documentation for the initial plan.
One
thing I would like to achieve in the writeup is communicating
that
things are not set in stone. Thinking through this I thought
about
possibly including the following points in the writeup.
* Any plans for the next LTS are subject to change.
* Patches for the current LTS will be accepted until at least
the
currently agreed date.
* Changes to the LTS process can be brought up on the dev
list.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:00 PM Christopher
<[email protected]> wrote:
Following up from the discussion at
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2F560bfe8d911be5b829e6250a34dfa1ace0584b24251651be1c77d724%40%253Cdev.accumulo.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cccae8357ee444dac038f08d75e029b6e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637081237595720486&sdata=OFd9ssV3kP4jwOxcjOKkMPUil%2B%2B0bzhPbfbmPCU1i7Q%3D&reserved=0
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
