João, I think we should not consider 5.0, but go to 20,0 that is more in line with what we've actually been doing (semantic versioning from the second digit)
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:53 AM Nux <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > > LGTM! > > On 2024-01-19 19:19, João Jandre Paraquetti wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I agree that our current versioning schema doesn't make much sense, as > > "minors" introduce pretty big features; even backward incompatibilities > > are introduced in minor versions sometimes. > > > > As the current plan is to have 4.20 by June, I think we should stick to > > it and still have the next "minor", and make it the last minor version > > of the major 4. After so much time in the same major version, we should > > plan something relevant before changing it, and June 2024 is a bit of a > > tight schedule for that. > > > > I think that we should plan to move to version 5.0.0, we could set the > > release date to the end of 2024 or the start (January) of 2025; by > > doing that, we have plenty of time for planning and developing amazing > > features for version 5, while also preparing a cleanup of our current > > APIs. For instance, we are working on the following major developments: > > KVM differential snapshots/backups without needing extra software; > > theme management system (white label portal for ACS); native > > snapshot/backup for VMware (without needing Veeam) to make it similar > > to what ACS does with XenServer and KVM; Operators backup (which are > > different from end-user backups); and many other items. > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > Best regards, > > João Jandre. > > > > On 1/19/24 10:39, Daan Hoogland wrote: > >> devs, PMC, > >> > >> as we are closing in on 4.19 I want to propose that we drop the 4. in > >> our versioning scheme. We've been discussing 5 but no real initiatives > >> have been taken. Nowadays big features go into our "minor" > >> dot-releases. In my opinion this warrants promoting those version to > >> the status of major and dropping the 4.. > >> > >> technically this won't be an issue as 20 > 4 and out upgrade scheme > >> supports a step like that. > >> > >> any thoughts? > >> -- Daan
