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.

Reply via email to