I don't think this statement is appropriate as it sounds more like product than 

Let me explain.

At Apache, anyone can propose and do a release based on any version, including 
very old ones.
Support sounds like the assessment that we are committed to provide fixes. 
That's more a product or company engagement if we talk about "support".  From a 
Apache standpoint, that's actually a best effort valid
  with any branch or version.

I would rather talk about active branches.

Even if we do 3.0.0 now, it's completely acceptable to do 2.0.1 in 5 years if 
needed. On the other hand, 3.0.x branch  can become inactive in 2 months.

That's why I'm not very comfortable to take such statement in the project.

My €0.01


Le 13 mars 2018 à 01:23, à 01:23, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a 
>What about this proposal:
>1. majors (X.y.z) are supported for 3 years
>2. minors (x.Y.z) are supported for 6 months (1 year? does it sound
>Just to ensure it is clear: implication is if we have 3.0.0 today then
>can have to do a 3.x.y ini 3 years even if we are at beam 10.
>This is the (core dev)  drawback but the advantage for the communities
>companies using beam is that they know they can rely on it and plan
>migrations as needed to never be on a no more maintained version.
>Romain Manni-Bucau
>@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
><https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
><http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
><https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>2018-03-06 14:10 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>> 2018-03-02 18:12 GMT+01:00 Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>:
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:45 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi guys,
>>> > I didn't find a page about beam release support. With the fast
>>> release rrythm which is targetted by beam (see other threads on
>that), I
>>> wonder what - as an end user - you should expect as breakage between
>>> versions (minor can add API but shouldn't break them typically) and
>>> long a version can get fixes (can I get a fix on the 2.0.0 - 2.0.1 -
>>> the 2.3.0 is out?).
>>> We promise semantic versioning, in particular API stability for
>>> releases:
>https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/#api-stability .
>>> > A page with some engagements like "we support majors for 3 years,
>>> for 6 months" would be very beneficial for end users IMO.
>>> Good point, though it's unclear what "support" means in the absence
>>> SLOs, etc.
>> Agree, for OS projects like Beam I think we can limit to "you can
>> new releases on demand or need".
>> I see it as Tomcat for instance, when EOL you can not expect any
>> even for security fixes, anymore. Whereas while "supported" you
>> are sure bugs and vulnerabilities can get a release in a "reasonable"
>> (this being up to the project on potentially on a case by case kind
>> thing).
>>> > Technically I also think beam should use clirr (I know there is a
>>> plugin, not sure about gradle but it is clearly not a technical
>>> It would allow to enforce the policy at build time and avoid
>>>   +1 to any and all automation of policies like this. (Of course the
>>> tricky
>>> bits are behavioral differences. In addition, all our public APIs
>>> be
>>> covered by tests, and any changes to existing tests should be vetted
>>> reviews and backwards incompatibility called out there.)

Reply via email to