You’ve added a ton of API surface to transaction behavior and cluster management. The TCM may or may not be strictly breaking, but they’re fundamentally very very different, so even with semver as the only standard, I think you can justify a major.
But also, let’s just acknowledge that marketing is a thing and bump the major to acknowledge the huge, massive, database-changing features, even if they’re not meant to be disruptive. > On Dec 10, 2024, at 9:46 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > Currently we reserve MAJOR in semver changes for API breaking only: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=199530302#Patching,versioning,andLTSreleases-Versioningandtargeting: > > That's consistent w/semver itself: link > <https://semver.org/#semantic-versioning-200>: >> Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: >> MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes >> MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible manner >> PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes > > So absolute literal "correctness" of what we're doing aside, our version > numbers mean something to us as a dev community but also mean something to > Cassandra users. I'm not confident they mean the same thing to each > constituency. I'm also not comfortable with us prioritizing our own version > number needs over that of our users, should they differ in meaning. > > Does anybody have insight into how other well known widely adopted projects > do things we might be able to learn from? I generally only think about this > topic when a discussion like this comes up on our dev list so don't have much > insight to bring to the discussion. > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024, at 11:52 AM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: >> The question is if we are signaling compatibility or purely marketing with >> the release number. >> We dropped compatibility with a few things in 5.0, which was the reason for >> the .0 rather than 4.2. I don’t know if we are breaking any compatibility >> with current trunk? Though maybe some of the TCM stuff could be considered >> that. >> If we are purely going for marketing value, then yes, I agree TCM+Accord >> would be 6.0 worthy. >> >> -Jeremiah >> >> On Dec 10, 2024 at 10:48:21 AM, Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com >> <mailto:j...@rustyrazorblade.com>> wrote: >>> Keeping this short. I'm not sure why we're calling the next release 5.1. >>> TCM and Accord are a massive thing. Other .1 / .2 releases were the .0 >>> with some smaller things added. Imo this is a huge step forward, as big as >>> 5.0 was, so we should call it 6.0.
