Just to illustrate what I was looking for @beam: this kind of page https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-80-eol.html but maybe not that fine grained.
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 15:47 GMT+01:00 Reuven Lax <re...@google.com>: > I agree with this. Support guarantee makes more sense for products. > > Specifically, there are several organizations that have products based on > Beam (Talend, Google,Data Artisans, Spotify, etc.). These companies may > provide support guarantees to their customers, which essentially means that > they are promising to propose Beam point releases to fix bugs in supported > SDKs (subject to vote of course, but there hasn't been opposition to such > point releases in the past). Support window makes perfect sense for these > organizations, and each one might have a different support window. However > this is a policy of these organizations, not of the Beam project. > > Reuven > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> 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. >> >> 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 >> >> 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-started/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.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
