Is it something we can add now the 2.4 is out? Le 13 mars 2018 16:02, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> You can also take a look on karaf download page about the schedule and > active table. > > Regards > JB > Le 13 mars 2018, à 07:52, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a > écrit: >> >> 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 <[email protected]>: >> >>> 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 < [email protected]> >>> 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 < [email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2018-03-02 18:12 GMT+01:00 Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:45 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>
