Daniel, "technical" reasons for dropping the 4 are all in the field of social engineering. In practice (as I think Wei also described) we are already treating the "minor" version number as major version. Since 4.0 or 4.1 (don´t remember) there has been renewed talk of a 5 , but never enough reason and or commitment to make it real. We could argue about it a lot.
so ¨¨¨ The main point is: *we have to understand the technical reasons for the proposal and what we expect from it before deciding anything. ¨¨¨ The most important point is that we expect that people understand that we treat the number that now seems to be "minor" as major release numbers. On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 7:42 PM Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > If we are discussing 5.0, I would have the same concern as you. > What we are discussing is dropping 4.x. The fact is, we will never release > 5.0 (anyone disagree ?) > In this case, the major version 4.x becomes useless. > If we compare 4.20.0/4.21.0 with 20.0/21.0, it is obvious which is better. > IMHO due to the similar reason, the Java version has been changed from 1.x > to java 1.7/1.8 (=java 7/8) then to java 11/14/17. > of course there will be some issues if semantic changes, I think it is > under control. > > > > Regarding the compatibility, I think we can change the APIs gradually. > I noticed the following recently when I tested VR upgrade to > debian12/python3 > > root@r-431-VM:~# python > Python 3.11.2 (main, Mar 13 2023, 12:18:29) [GCC 12.2.0] on linux > Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. > >>> import cgi > <stdin>:1: DeprecationWarning: 'cgi' is deprecated and slated for removal > in Python 3.13 > > For the API changes you mentioned, we could try the similar > - in version X, add new APIs, mark the old APIs as deprecated > - tell users the old APIs will be removed in version Y, please use new APIs > instead. > - in version Y, remove the old APIs. > > This can be done in each major/minor release. No need to wait for 5.0. > > > -Wei > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 18:51, Guto Veronezi <gutoveron...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Exactly, so you understand now why we must discuss what we intend. > > Although, incompatibilities are needed sometimes so we can evolve, > > leaving old ways and deprecated technologies and techniques in the past. > > > > *The main point is: *we have to understand the technical reasons for the > > proposal and what we expect from it before deciding anything. > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel Salvador (gutoveronezi) > > > > > > -- Daan
