Joao, My bad, your email read to me that you "will be closing the voting thread" but it didn't mention when. And, your email on the discussion thread suggested "voting is an important step to formalize the changes", so I voted on the basis that the vote was still in play.
Regards. ________________________________ From: João Jandre <j...@apache.org> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 00:55 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Versioning process Hi, Rohit In your previous message in this thread you proposed a hold on the vote. In my reply I said that it would be closed since there was more discussion to be made according to you. And now you are voting in the same thread? Can we continue the discussion on the discussion thread or is this your final stance? In any case, since the vote was closed I don't think we should be voting in this thread. I'll open a new one with updated descriptions when it seems like we are ready to vote again. Best regards, João Jandre On 5/14/25 04:26, Rohit Yadav wrote: > -1 (binding) > > This is mainly due to the point that "Changes to the database schema should > be introduced only in major versions" — the definition of "major" here (4.xx, > 5.xx) is based on Joao’s interpretation, and the proposed versioning approach > isn’t well defined and is asked for a vote. > > Additional notes: > > On #1: No objection if the plan is simply to drop the "4." from versioning. > > On #2: I believe it's in the community's interest to allow DB schema changes > in minor (ex: 4.19.x, 4.20.x), maintenance/patch (ex: 4.19.3, 4.20.1), and > security releases when needed. Requiring a major version bump (e.g., 4 → 5) > each time there are schema changes feels overly restrictive, especially when > users can follow best practices such as doing DB backup (or snapshot) when > downgrades. > > On #3: Already in effect. > > We should evaluate proposals based on whether they serve the community’s > long-term benefit. > > PS. I’ll try to revisit versioning and release policies in light of Joao's > intent in the coming weeks. > > Best regards. > > ________________________________ > From: João Jandre <j...@apache.org> > Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 16:42 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Versioning process > > Hi, Rohit, all > > The last discussion thread was open for a week before the vote was > started and; before that, there were many discussion threads: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/hnzp6hnsjyj8593cf6tbgryt1s8z5glq > https://lists.apache.org/thread/lh45w55c3jmhm7w2w0xgdvlw78pd4p87 > https://lists.apache.org/thread/4zs8d15ghvvwwro46ry5zjf8fn8x0t88 > https://lists.apache.org/thread/o6o9h3qp8gqrpq4v7o81tl6vp51tkjhg > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/discussions/8970 > https://lists.apache.org/thread/6v0w49gp0fwtp53so757mx6nf34vpg81 > > In the last thread, I took the feedback I got from the discussions and > proposed changes with that in mind. Furthermore, the few responses on > the last discussion were positive, which is why I opened the vote. > > I see that you have stated your points in the discussion thread. We can > keep the discussion going next week, and I'll be closing this voting thread. > > Best regards, > > João Jandre > > On 5/9/25 00:54, Rohit Yadav wrote: >> May I propose we hold the vote, this has three different topics being >> considered which looks like still need to be discussed. Also we cannot vote >> on some of the things whose details are yet to be completed defined and >> proposed. >> >> >> Regards. >> ________________________________ >> From: João Jandre <j...@apache.org> >> Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 12:21:22 AM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Versioning process >> >> Hi Daan, >> >> Regarding your first point, adding default values to the DB is different >> from changing the DB schema. Changing the DB schema would be >> creating/removing tables or creating/removing columns. Thus, adding new >> values to tables would not be an issue. Would you like me to add this >> definition to the vote? >> >> Regarding the second point, I will add a exception for APIs. Regarding >> DB changes I have already specified it in the original voting message. >> >> Best regards, >> >> João Jandre >> >> On 5/8/25 09:47, Daan Hoogland wrote: >>> João, >>> I am completely +1 on item 3. >>> I am missing the exceptions that we need on both other issues. >>> - for DB we add hypervisor types in minor versions and those need DB changes >>> - for both DB and API changes we make exceptions for security releases >>> given a rewording to include those, I would be completely +1 on your >>> proposal. >>> >>> so for now -0.666... >>> >>> I would still push back on incompatible changes on major releases btw. >>> I want users to be able to continue using ACS for all eternity ;) But >>> we can handle those with migration paths and those would become >>> regular discussions here at dev@. >>> >>> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:15 PM João Jandre <j...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> Hello, all >>>> >>>> I am starting this voting thread regarding the discussions made in >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/4jk31krsjl8cbp5n8wbt7ypwl65g364j. To be >>>> specific, these are the changes that we are going to vote on to follow >>>> during our release process: >>>> >>>> 1. API Changes: Any changes to APIs that break backwards compatibility >>>> should only be made in MAJOR versions. Currently, these would be our >>>> 5.x.x, 6.x.x, etc.. After this thread is finished, I will start another >>>> thread regarding our version naming. >>>> >>>> 2. Database Schema: Changes to the database schema should be introduced >>>> only in major versions. The only exception is for potential security >>>> changes that require database changes; we never had such cases, and when >>>> (if) it appears, we will properly communicate it to operators/users of ACS. >>>> >>>> 3. Feature Removal: Update the process of feature removal (see >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68720798) >>>> to ensure that features are only removed in major versions, after having >>>> been announced at least 6 months in advance in a previous version. >>>> >>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours. >>>> >>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to >>>> indicate "(binding)" with their vote? >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>>> >> > >
