This is another topic we basically revisit afresh every time :) I think it’s fine to bump for marketing or vibe reasons, I would support it. I don’t think we need to confect some weak semverish justification.
> On 10 Dec 2024, at 13:01, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >> >>
