On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:28 AM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 12:46 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > > Correct, it is up to every user of SemVer to define the public API and > > AFAIK we have chosen not to include things like the Java version > > needed to run Accumulo in ours[1]. > > > > That doesn't mean it's not crappy to our downstream users to do things > > that have a major operational impact upon minor releases. Updating a > > Personally I don't think creating a 1.10 line should preclude ever > releasing another 1.9. If a really serious bug is found and someone > wants to fix it in 1.9 and do the work to make a release happen, then > I would support them. Practically, though we want to minimize the > amount of work everyone has to do and this is just more work for > someone. >
I think that's a good point, in general, for the LTS strategy that we've been discussing in the other thread. It'd still be *possible* to release patches for non-LTS releases... we just wouldn't *normally* do it, to minimize the work. But, if it's really serious, and somebody's willing to do the work, then it could still happen occasionally.
