Works for me.

What's the procedure to add it on the website (and where can we add it)?


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
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>

2018-03-13 13:39 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>:

> That's the statement I'm doing in Karaf: I have two active branches, with
> backward compatibility guarantee on both. If we introduce a new branch,
> then the oldest one is flagged as "not active" (I prefer "not active"
> wording than "EOL" as a release can happen on a non active branch).
>
> In that sense of "support" and wording, I agree.
>
> Regards
> JB
> Le 13 mars 2018, à 05:23, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a
> écrit:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-03-13 12:50 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I don't think this statement is appropriate as it sounds more like
>>> product than project.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Agree
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I would rather talk about active branches.
>>>
>>
>> Works as well since it leads to the same outcome for companies: be able
>> to know when the code will maybe no more be maintained. (just let say it is
>> a "phrasing issue" here)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> This is what I try to fill as gap. "best effort" or "can do" doesnt let
>> any company plan anyting. Whereas "in 2 years it will be best efforts" let
>> you plan ahead.
>>
>> Most of big asf projects have such a statement and at least some
>> visibility on their EOL which is an investment guarantee for a company.
>> This point is key for a portable API (it is less for a particular vendor).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That's why I'm not very comfortable to take such statement in the
>>> project.
>>>
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, i'm not super comfortable today since I feel like the
>> API can change a lot for 3.x and having 2.x and 3.x quite different to
>> maintain can hurt a bit,
>> but not having such a statement is an issue easy to hit when you try to
>> "sell" beam to users (don't forget big data is not used by "small" projects
>> but mainly by companies only for obvious reasons ;)).
>>
>> If we think in terms of active branches, what does it mean?
>>
>> 2 max active branches at a time?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> My €0.01
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>> Le 13 mars 2018, à 01:23, Romain Manni-Bucau < rmannibu...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit:
>>>>
>>>> Up?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> doable?)
>>>>
>>>> Just to ensure it is clear: implication is if we have 3.0.0 today then
>>>> we 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
>>>> and 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.
>>>>
>>>> wdyt?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I didn't find a page about beam release support. With the fast minor
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> long a version can get fixes (can I get a fix on the 2.0.0 - 2.0.1 -
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> the 2.3.0 is out?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We promise semantic versioning, in particular API stability for minor
>>>>>> releases: https://beam.apache.org/get-st
>>>>>> arted/downloads/#api-stability .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > A page with some engagements like "we support majors for 3 years,
>>>>>> minors
>>>>>> for 6 months" would be very beneficial for end users IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point, though it's unclear what "support" means in the absence
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> SLOs, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree, for OS projects like Beam I think we can limit to "you can
>>>>> expect new releases on demand or need".
>>>>>
>>>>> I see it as Tomcat for instance, when EOL you can not expect any
>>>>> release, even for security fixes, anymore. Whereas while "supported" you
>>>>> are sure bugs and vulnerabilities can get a release in a "reasonable"
>>>>> time (this being up to the project on potentially on a case by case kind 
>>>>> of
>>>>> thing).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Technically I also think beam should use clirr (I know there is a
>>>>>> maven
>>>>>> plugin, not sure about gradle but it is clearly not a technical
>>>>>> blocker).
>>>>>> It would allow to enforce the policy at build time and avoid
>>>>>> surprises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   +1 to any and all automation of policies like this. (Of course the
>>>>>> tricky
>>>>>> bits are behavioral differences. In addition, all our public APIs
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> covered by tests, and any changes to existing tests should be vetted
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> reviews and backwards incompatibility called out there.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>

Reply via email to