Even if TCM is api-compatible, it will change how operators run Cassandra in a significant way (like, different procedures from every previous version.) I think that justifies a major.
Kind Regards, Brandon On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 11:51 AM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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: > > 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> 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. > >
