On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> Rajani, > > By the rules of semantic versioning (which we follow), incrementing the > major version should only occur if there there is a change that breaks > backwards compatibility of the API, removes support for a integrated > component, or otherwise reduces/removes existing functionality. my question was to check if anyone is working on such a change. Based on the replies, I think its a NO. > Assuming we targeting late August 2016 for the next release, it is a bit > short notice to introduce such changes. Therefore, the next release should > be 4.10. > My opinions is, its never too late. Since no one is working on any such feature, we need not get into that discussion now. > > I have opened a discussion to determine if/when we should have a 5.0.0 > release in order to provide developers and users with sufficient notice for > such significant changes. > The challenge is to find out who is doing the hard work for such features. Thanks, Rajani > > Thanks, > -John > > > > john.burw...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:31 AM, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I like this discussion. But, my original question was not about what > should > > the next release number be? > > > > i was checking if anyone working on anything big and hence want the next > > release to be 5.0? > > > > ~Rajani > > > > <http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> maybe I should have answered here instead of the other thread :S > >> > >> I am all with John on this. I can not judge the dates but the overall > ideas > >> are spot on. > >> > >> I now see the API weren't mentioned in this thread I think they should. > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:53 AM, ilya <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I agree and support John's comments below. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> ilya > >>> > >>> On 6/14/16 2:44 PM, John Burwell wrote: > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> Completely agree with Daan. Per semantic versioning, a major revision > >>> increase must introduce a backwards incompatible change in the public > >> API, > >>> removal of one of more supported devices, reduction in the list of > >>> supported distributions. I agree that when we require Java8+, drop > >> Ubuntu > >>> 12.04 support, drop support for an old hypervisor version, etc, we > will > >>> need to increment the major revision to reflect the fact that the > release > >>> is not backwards compatible. > >>>> > >>>> For 4.10 and LTS 4.9.0_1, I see it as critical that we support running > >>> on either Java7 or Java8. In particular, producing an LTS release that > >>> only supports a JVM that has been unsupported for nearly 18 months > would > >>> make it DOA in many shops. > >>>> > >>>> It seems like it would make sense to have a 5.0.0 release that removed > >>> support for a number of legacy components (e.g. Xen 6.0 possibly 6.2, > >>> Java7, CentOS 5, etc), as well as, internal improvements (e.g. > simplified > >>> configuration). The focus of this release would be to reduce the > >> footprint > >>> of codebase, as well as, make a set of backwards incompatible changes > >> that > >>> further decouples plugins from core. We would then plan for a 6.0.0 in > >>> 4Q2017 to introduce further architectural changes and API revisions. > The > >>> advantage to this approach is that it breaks up the large refactorings > >> and > >>> architectural design changes — allowing us to gain velocity by removing > >>> legacy components, reducing the risk of these changes, and providing > user > >>> benefit earlier. Based on the release plan I previously proposed we > have > >>> the following releases remaining in 2016 and in early 2017: > >>>> > >>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016 > >>>> * 4.11 releasing on or about 23 October 2016 > >>>> * 4.12 releasing on or about 18 December 2016 > >>>> * 4.13 release on or about 5 February 2017 > >>>> > >>>> 4.12 seems to be the sweet spot in the schedule to cut the 5.0.0 > >> release > >>> described above. It would give us sometime to plan and gain consensus > >>> around the changes in both the user and dev communities. It would also > >>> allow the second LTS release to be based on 5.0.0 — allowing both > release > >>> cycles to take advantage of the reduced support requirements and Java8 > >>> language features. Based on this proposal, the releases above would > >> change > >>> to the following: > >>>> > >>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016 > >>>> * 4.11 releasing on or about 23 October 2016 > >>>> * 5.0.0 releasing on or about 18 December 2016 > >>>> * 5.1.0 release on or about 5 February 2017 > >>>> > >>>> I am in the process of moving my proposal into the wiki. If this > >>> approach is acceptable, I will reflect it there, and open a thread to > >>> discuss 5.0.0. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -John > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>> john.burw...@shapeblue.com > >>>> www.shapeblue.com > >>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK > >>>> @shapeblue > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 Daan. > >>>>> > >>>>> My recollection was that major version number changes were only to be > >>> triggered by breaks in backward compatibility (API). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Kind regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Paul Angus > >>>>> > >>>>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> www.shapeblue.com > >>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > >>>>> @shapeblue > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > >>>>> Sent: 14 June 2016 14:47 > >>>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>>> Cc: Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> > >>>>> Subject: Re: 4.9+ release > >>>>> > >>>>> You know that would require more then one byte for our minor version, > >>> Will. > >>>>> I would be very pleased to go to 5.0 before that time. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com > > > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Daan is just trying to get us to version 4.256. :P > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Will STEVENS* > >>>>>> Lead Developer > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > >>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* > >> tw > >>>>>> @CloudOps_ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Daan Hoogland > >>>>>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -1 to what Wido said. None of those points warant a major release > >>>>>>> number upgrade. these should all be in 4.10, -.11, -12 etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> major incompatibilities like API refactor, dropping backend support > >>>>>>> for this or that hyporvisor or DB refactor are the things that > >>>>>>> warrant 5.0, IMNSHO > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Will Stevens > >>>>>>> <williamstev...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1. :) > >>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2016 5:07 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Op 14 juni 2016 om 10:55 schreef Rajani Karuturi < > >>>>>> raj...@apache.org > >>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 4.10 or 5.0? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would say 4.10 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We are in the 4.* release cycle from a long time. > >>>>>>>>>> Just wanted to check if anyone is planning on major changes > >>>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>> warrants > >>>>>>>>>> 5.0 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5.0 should imho be: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - Java 8 > >>>>>>>>> - Ubuntu 16.04 / systemd support > >>>>>>>>> - Drop support for older libvirt versions (KVM) > >>>>>>>>> - Some killer feature(s) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Wido > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ~Rajani > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Daan > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Daan > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Daan > >> > >
