On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> wrote:
> 3.0, however, will require a stabilisation period, just by the nature of > it. It might seem like 2.2 and 3.0 are closer to each other than 2.1 and > 2.2 are, if you go purely by the feature list, but in fact the opposite is > true. > You are probably right. But let me push back on some of the extra work you're proposing just a little: 1) 2.0.x branch goes EOL when 3.0 is out, as planned > 3.0 was, however unrealistically, planned for April. And it's moving the goalposts to say the plan was always to keep 2.0.x for three major releases; the plan was to EOL with "the next major release after 2.1" whether that was called 3.0 or not. So I think EOLing 2.0.x when 2.2 comes out is reasonable, especially considering that 2.2 is realistically a month or two away even if we can get a beta out this week. 2) 3.0.x LTS branch stays, as planned, and helps us stabilise the new > storage engine > Yes. > 3) in a few months after 2.2 gets released, we EOL 2.1. Users upgrade to > 2.2, get the same stability as with 2.1.7, plus a few new features > If push comes to shove I'm okay being ambiguous here, but can we just say "when 3.0 is released we EOL 2.1?" P.S. The area I'm most concerned about introducing destabilizing changes in 2.2 is commitlog; I will follow up to make sure we have a solid QA plan there. -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
