Re: Push TCM (CEP-21) and Accord (CEP-15) to 5.1 (and cut an immediate 5.1-alpha1)

[Benedict]

I agree. If we go this route we should essentially announce an immediate 5.1 alpha at the same time as 5.0 GA, and I can’t see almost anybody rolling out 5.0 with 5.1 so close on its heels. On 23 Oct 2023, at 18:11, Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> wrote: I’m not so sure that many folks will choose to go 4.0->5.0->5.1 path instead of just waiting longer for TCM+Accord to be in, and go 4.0->5.1 in one hop. Nobody likes going through these upgrades. So I personally expect 5.0 to be a largely ghost release if we go this route, adopted by few, just a permanent burden on the merge path to trunk. Not to say that there isn’t valuable stuff in 5.0 without TCM and Accord - there most certainly is - but with the expectation that 5.1 will follow up reasonably shortly after with all that *and* two highly anticipated features on top, I just don’t see the point. It will be another 2.2 release. On 23 Oct 2023, at 17:43, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: We discussed that at length in various other mailing threads Jeff - kind of settled on "we're committing to cutting a major (semver MAJOR or MINOR) every 12 months but want to remain flexible for exceptions when appropriate". And then we discussed our timeline for 5.0 this year and settled on the "let's try and get it out this calendar year so it's 12 months after 4.1, but we'll grandfather in TCM and Accord past freeze date if they can make it by October". So that's the history for how we landed here. 2) Do we drop the support of 3.0 and 3.11 after 5.0.0 is out or after 5.1.0 is? This is my understanding, yes. Deprecation and support drop is predicated on the 5.0 release, not any specific features or anything. On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, at 12:29 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:52 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: The TCM work (CEP-21) is in its review stage but being well past our cut-off date¹ for merging, and now jeopardising 5.0 GA efforts, I would like to propose the following. I think this presumes that 5.0 GA is date driven instead of feature driven. I'm sure there's a conversation elsewhere, but why isn't this date movable?