> > If I had to pick a month of the year to release software used by large > enterprises, it probably would be something like March instead of December. > I have no good research to back that up, of course... >
Can confirm. Many large enterprises (especially retailers) have been in "holiday code freeze" for a few weeks already. Infrastructure teams will be freezing all changes shortly (they get a few "buffer" weeks to scale-out for holiday traffic). Everything is basically locked-down until the week after New Years. Once infra teams can push changes again, they'll likely have a backlog of findings from their security team, indicating a list of things that need to be patched/updated across all of their server instances. At Target, we usually had to spend all of January playing "catch-up" to make the security scans happy again. Maybe by mid-February, they'll be ready to entertain doing a database update. So the February/March timeframe is a good choice. Aaron On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:12 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > If I had to pick a month of the year to release software used by large > enterprises, it probably would be something like March instead of December. > > That's... a good point. If we end up on a cadence of major's in December > (since we slipped to then for 4.1 and inherit that from that calendar year > "pressure") we're setting ourselves up to release right in the largest > consistent change-freeze window I know of for most users. > > It will be another 2.2 release. > > Let me live on with the stories I tell myself about the hordes of Windows > users that appreciated Windows support before the Storage Engine rewrite, > thank you very much. :D > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, at 1:57 PM, Caleb Rackliffe wrote: > > ...or like the end of January. Either way, feel free to ignore the "aside" > :) > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:53 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Kind of in the same place as Benedict/Aleksey. > > If we release a 5.1 in, let's say...March of next year, the number of 5.0 > users is going to be very minimal. Nobody is going to upgrade anything > important from now through the first half of January anyway, right? They're > going to be making sure their existing clusters aren't exploding. > > (We still want TCM/Accord to be available to people to test by Summit, but > that feels unrelated to whether we cut a 5.1 branch...) > > Aside: If I had to pick a month of the year to release software used by > large enterprises, it probably would be something like March instead of > December. I have no good research to back that up, of course... > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:19 PM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > To be clear, I’m not making an argument either way about the path forwards > we should take, just concurring about a likely downside of this proposal. I > don’t have a strong opinion about how we should proceed. > > > On 23 Oct 2023, at 18:16, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > 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? > > >
