6.0 even just for the reasons Brandon mentioned sounds reasonable to me. And I acknowledge there are more
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 13:10, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. > >> > >> > >
