Why ship a ghost release we dont really expect people to use. Why not just move the date so all the PR content highlighting TCM+Accord isnt a mess?
I get it, nobody wants to move dates. Isn't that the least-bad option? On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:28 AM 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? > > >
