> 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.
Given how long 2.0.x has been alive now, and the stability of 2.1.x at the moment, I’d say it’s fair enough to EOL 2.0 as soon as 2.2 gets out. Can’t argue here. > 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?" Under our current projections, that’ll be exactly “a few months after 2.2 is released”, so I’m again fine with it. > P.S. The area I'm most concerned about introducing destabilizing changes in > 2.2 is commitlog So long as you don’t you compressed CL, you should be solid. You are probably solid even if you do use compressed CL. Here are my only concerns: 1. New authz are not opt-in. If a user implements their own custom authenticator or authorized, they’d have to upgrade them sooner. The test coverage for new authnz, however, is better than the coverage we used to have before. 2. CQL2 is gone from 2.2. Might force those who use it migrate faster. In practice, however, I highly doubt that anybody using CQL2 is also someone who’d already switch to 2.1.x or 2.2.x. -- AY On May 11, 2015 at 21:12:26, Jonathan Ellis (jbel...@gmail.com) wrote: 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
