+1 to maintain 3 version lines. Let’s properly announce that in our portal and 
users list such that users know what’s coming.

Agree with focusing on 2.0 which has a lot of improvements, rather than 1.x, x 
>= 3.

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Alexandre Vermeerbergen 
> <avermeerber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +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)
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to