+1 On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 8:37 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +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. >> >> >>
