Thank you for the pointer but I did read it. My point is that this thread seems to have gone from “let’s create a branch to electively pull changes into” to “we are retrospectively adding a 5.1 branch somewhere between 5.0 and current trunk”, which I think is a completely different discussion.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025, at 9:15 PM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: > I am afraid something like an "enthusiast-driven branch" is not a > thing. Please read the last email of Jeff, first section. > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 9:12 PM Alex Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 4.0 -> 4.1 -> 5.0 -> 5.1 -> trunk > > > > Could you elaborate: I was under impression the new branch is going to be > > maintained by a group of enthusiasts. Are we now considering making this > > new branch in the upgrade path? This sounds rather different from the > > original idea of having an officially supported back port branch. > > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025, at 8:13 PM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: > > > > What about this: do a proper 5.1 branch with everything (pipelines, release > > ...) but put there only Java 21 support and CEP-37? > > > > Release-wise, the appetite is there (Josh, Bernardo). We would keep 5.0 > > intact, 5.1 would be a branch we try this new model in, learn the lessons > > from it. When we support Java 21 and CEP-37 as only two changes and nothing > > else, it will already address Java 21 / unsupported Java 17 concerns and it > > would bring a lot of relief to people trying to transition to 6.0 > > eventually and they would have some time to prepare for that. Then, in 6.0, > > TCM / Accord would be production ready waiting for them to migrate to, > > while they would already be on Java 21 + repairs. > > > > So for a while we would have > > > > 4.0 -> 4.1 -> 5.0 -> 5.1 -> trunk > > > > Then 6.0 is out, by then, we will deprecate 4.x, right? So it would be > > > > 5.0 -> 5.1 -> 6.0 -> trunk > > > > Then we can do 6.1 branch and we will have some experience of what worked / > > did not and we will be more ready to backport more or we will just abandon > > this altogether. > > > > My idea is to just do something quick yet already beneficial. If we > > backport only Java 21 and CEP-37 then upgrade paths will be pretty smooth, > > nothing new will be there to cause any friction. > > > > As 5.0 / 5.1 will diverge relatively very little, all patches from 5.0 -> > > 5.1 would be very easy, in majority of cases just clean merges up. > > > > The only overhead is CI but we have pre-ci too which we can leverage so ... > > > > I would be more open to this if we agreed that the scope of the backporting > > on this initial pilot will be limited to a minimum of features and nothing > > else. Then we can just reflect on what we did. > > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 7:38 PM Jeff Jirsa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 2025, at 7:02 AM, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > To respond to some of the other points and throw my perspective into the > > > mix: > > > > > >> Release engineering for a branch is nearly a full-time job. > > > While release management is a burden (and one we've had a hard time > > > resourcing for years), I don't see it as being nearly a full-time job per > > > branch. We also have contributors willing to step forward and take on > > > this extra work and plenty of opportunity for automation on both release > > > preparation and validation that would lower that burden further. > > > > > >> Unofficial branches will miss correctness and compatibility fixes unless > > >> their maintenance is made a burden for all committers. > > > Both proposals (backport to 5.0, support a 5.1 that accepts backport) > > > would be considered official during the pilot. Bugfixes that are 5.0 or > > > older would have 1 more branch they needed to apply to and merge through. > > > > > > > I see the word unofficial used too many times. There’s no such thing as > > unofficial. If it’s merged by committers and voted on for release by the > > PMC, it’s official. If it’s not, it doesn’t belong in the ASF repos. > > > > > > > >> – Backports branches don’t solve the “some people run forks” problem. > > > I see this a bit differently; it doesn't "solve" the problem (I don't > > > personally see this as a problem to be solved fwiw), but it does bring > > > those forks much closer to upstream and move engineering effort that > > > would otherwise be on private forks into the public space benefiting > > > everyone. > > > > I think you’ve seen at least a few reasons in this thread why the goal and > > proposal may not align. What one team considers ready and low risk, another > > team begs not to be included. I suspect if there was really, truly a shared > > understanding of “this is back port ready, low risk, ready to run”, we > > could just put it into the existing branches (with a “yes this is a > > feature, but it’s a feature we all trust” discussion)? > > > > >
