I would start a formal vote to have feedback from everyone and propose where to 
add such detail (I would suggest directly on the download/version page), then 
we can create a PR on the website.

Regards
JB

Le 13 mars 2018 à 05:44, à 05:44, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a 
écrit:
>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