On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:36 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? > We won't move to 5.x until some time after the dust settles, and I can't see us starting that timer until after 5.1 (assuming that's when TCM+Accord lands). > > I get it, nobody wants to move dates. Isn't that the least-bad option? > I think so. > > 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? >> >> >> -- Eric Evans <eev...@wikimedia.org> Staff SRE, Data Persistence Wikimedia Foundation
