+1 On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 16:37, Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +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. >>> >>> >>> -- Dmitry Konstantinov
