I'd prefer a GA release this month. On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 3:39 AM Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Ryan > > We can branch out at 5.6-alpha1, cherry-pick bug fixes and release it as > 5.6 GA this month or we can do 5.6-alpha2 this month and release 5.6 GA > in January. > > Let me know what you would prefer. > > Oleg > > On 12/05/2025 19:41, Ryan Schmitt wrote: > > I can do the same thing with basically arbitrary commits. I'll test the > > current master branches presently. > > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 2:15 AM Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I could test a new alpha or beta in a branch in our CI at work as a > >> sanity check. > >> > >> Gary > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, 23:40 Ryan Schmitt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> There are some changes merged in since the alpha release, including a > new > >>> optional dependency in the client (caffeine). I think we can either > >> release > >>> the current alphas as stable versions, or do new beta releases off of > the > >>> current master branches. I'm leaning towards the latter, since it > brings > >> in > >>> some bug fixes, the heavily revised RouteSegmentedConnPool, RFC6874 > zone > >>> identifiers, and a few other things. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 3:54 AM Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 2025-12-02 at 18:10 -0800, Ryan Schmitt wrote: > >>>>> The need for a 5.6 release is starting to become more urgent on my > >>>>> end. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. The AWS Java SDK has added preview support for Apache 5.x that > >>>>> they want > >>>>> to release soon, and I want them to have idle timeout support from > >>>>> the > >>>>> start. I'm also a little concerned about some of the changes in TLS > >>>>> configuration behavior and I don't want them to have to straddle both > >>>>> 5.5 > >>>>> and 5.6. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. I recently had to make an emergency patch for a team that was > >>>>> having > >>>>> latency issues that would have been fixed by the changes in 5.6-- > >>>>> mainly > >>>>> idle timeout support, which makes it safe to raise the connection > >>>>> TTL. > >>>>> (Currently the only alternative is `pool.closeIdle()`, which we > >>>>> stopped > >>>>> using years ago because of performance issues, particularly with > >>>>> strict > >>>>> pools. Off-lock disposal might also help with this.) > >>>>> > >>>>> Everything looked good when I tested 5.6-alpha1, and we haven't > >>>>> merged many > >>>>> changes since then. Should we set an approximate date to release Core > >>>>> 5.4 > >>>>> and Client 5.6? Are there any unmerged PRs or additional features > >>>>> that we > >>>>> are definitely targeting for 5.6? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ryan > >>>> > >>>> Just say when you need it and I will put it no vote and vote in favor. > >>>> If there is enough time we can also do one BETA in between. > >>>> > >>>> Oleg > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
