Thanks, Ryan! I have forgotten about the previous discussion!
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:15 PM Ryan Skraba <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello! We've started and stopped this discussion a couple of times -- > but it ends up getting a bit bogged down in details, and there's so > much going on that we end on sticking with the status quo! > > I would love to have this discussion again though and come to a > conclusion. We could be doing quite a few things better, and changing > our release strategy to a more flexible and modern style is likely > going to make things easier for us in the long run. > > Among the related topics are: > > 1) Moving to more recognizable semantic versioning (i.e., dropping the > "1." prefix in Avro). > I am +1 for this! > 2) Versioning the website and specification for releases. > This is discussed at https://lists.apache.org/thread/29mzv23z3940sxmchj7c7s9ozq0fb874 But with the idea of splitting the SDKs releases it becomes harder to say how exactly to version the documentation. > 3) Supporting N minor releases simultaneously (where N is more than 1) > I still think that 2 major releases is the best we could do with the current number of active developers. > 4) Splitting the language SDKs to separate releases and releasing > separately. > +1 > > Just for reference, I always like to link the thread to the last time > we discussed (which links to the previous years). There's quite a few > good points! I don't think we can ever really satisfy everyone, but > we can definitely make changes. > Maybe a good way to get to consensus would be to list the possible > actions we could take, and prioritize them? > Shall we have an official VOTE for those ? > > Thanks for bringing this up and HAPPY NEW YEAR everybody! > > Ryan > > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/rybf7vb514mtkr7swfld7b06g1kb2r3t > "[DISCUSS] Releases, versioning and lifecycle" > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:05 PM Oscar Westra van Holthe - Kind > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 08:15, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > [...] the problem is the availability of active maintainers. > > > > This is another issue, and important too IMHO. I'm just not certain > there's > > a solution though. > > I'll raise another thread if I ever have ideas to tackle it. > > > > Kind regards, > > Oscar > > > > -- > > > > ✉️ Oscar Westra van Holthe - Kind <[email protected]> >
