+1

I also remember we agreed on Discuss thread for removing anything plus
preference for backward compatibility wherever it is possible.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 7:00, Sam Tunnicliffe <s...@beobal.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> > On 17 Apr 2025, at 16:58, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > [DISCUSS] thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/jy6vodbkh64plhdfwqz3l3364gsmh2lq
> >
> > The proposed new versioning mechanism:
> >     • We no longer use semver .MINOR
> >     • Online upgrades are supported for all GA supported releases at
> time of new .MAJOR
> >     • T-1 releases are guaranteed API compatible for non-deprecated
> features
> >     • 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.
>
>
>

Reply via email to