> I'd like to maintain a *very* high bar for user API-breaking changes – much > higher than "our rules allow us to" I don't know if we've formalized this (or even need to; may be obvious?), but having a bar of "[DISCUSS] thread on dev ML with clear consensus" seems reasonable for user API-breaking changes. Or additions for that matter (I believe we already agreed on the latter).
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025, at 5:38 PM, C. Scott Andreas wrote: > +1 > > To the point on breaking changes and deprecations, I'd like to maintain a > *very* high bar for user API-breaking changes – much higher than "our rules > allow us to". Any time we break users, the project loses release uptake and > creates friction for the community. > > – Scott > >> On Apr 17, 2025, at 2:32 PM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 3:59 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >>> __ >>> [DISCUSS] thread: >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/jy6vodbkh64plhdfwqz3l3364gsmh2lq >>> >>> The proposed new versioning mechanism: >>> 1. We no longer use semver .MINOR >>> 2. Online upgrades are supported for all GA supported releases at time of >>> new .MAJOR >>> 3. T-1 releases are guaranteed API compatible for non-deprecated features >>> 4. We use a deprecate-then-remove strategy for API breaking changes >>> (deprecate in release N, then remove in N+1) >>> This would translate into the following for our upcoming releases (assuming >>> 3 supported majors at all times): >>> • 6.0: 5.0, 4.1, 4.0 online upgrades are supported (grandfather window). >>> We drop support for 4.0. API compatibility is guaranteed w/5.0 >>> • 7.0: 6.0, 5.0, 4.1 online upgrades are supported (grandfather window). >>> We drop support for 4.1. API compatibility is guaranteed w/6.0 >>> • 8.0: 7.0, 6.0, 5.0 online upgrades are supported (fully on new >>> paradigm). We drop support for 5.0. API compatibility guaranteed w/7.0 >>> David asked the question: >>>> Does this imply that each release is allowed to make breaking changes >>>> (assuming they followed the “correct” deprecation process)? My first >>>> instinct is to not like this >>> Each release *would* be allowed to make breaking changes but only for >>> features that have already been deprecated for one major release cycle. >>> >>> This is a process change so as per our governance: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Cassandra+Project+Governance, >>> it'll require a super majority of 50% of the roll called PMC in favor. >>> Current roll call is 21 so we need 11 pmc members to participate, 8 of >>> which are in favor of the change. >>> >>> I'll plan to leave the vote open until we hit enough participation to pass >>> or fail it up to probably a couple weeks. >
