+1 (non binding) to maintaining less version lines, provided that 1.2.x branch is maintained long enough to allow progressive adoption of 2.x
Alexandre Vermeerbergen 2018-02-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Priyank Shah <ps...@hortonworks.com>: > +1 to maintaining 3 version lines as suggested by Jungtaek. > > On 2/13/18, 9:51 AM, "Arun Iyer on behalf of Arun Mahadevan" > <ai...@hortonworks.com on behalf of ar...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 to maintain 3 version lines. > > I think the next focus should be 2.0.0 than 1.3.0. > > > > > On 2/12/18, 11:40 PM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Hi devs, > > > >I've noticed that we are providing 4 different version lines (1.1.x, > 1.0.x, > >0.10.x, 0.9.x) in download page, and I expect we will add one more for > >1.2.0. Moreover, we have one more develop version line (2.0.0 - master) > >which most of development happens there. > > > >Recently we're releasing 3 version lines (1.0.6 / 1.1.2 / 1.2.0) > >simultaneously and it took heavy effort to track all the RCs and verify > all > >of them. I guess release manager would take more overhead of releasing, > and > >it doesn't make sense for me if we continue maintaining all of them. > > > >Ideally I'd like to propose maintaining three version lines: 2.0.0 (next > >major) / 1.3.0 (next minor - may not happen) / 1.2.1 (next bugfix) and > >making others EOL (that respects semantic versioning and even other > >projects tend to maintain only two version lines), but if someone feels > too > >aggressive, I propose at least we explicitly announce EOL to 0.x version > >lines and get rid of any supports (downloads) for them. > > > >Would like to hear your opinion. > > > >Thanks, > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > >
