We are using 0.94 and at present we are satisfied with it.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi Lars, > > Thanks for starting the discussion. > > My 2¢: > I think we should keep 0.94 going for at least few minor releases. To apply > big fixes and performances fixes. However, new features should only go into > 0.96 and should now not be backported anymore. That way we can keep 0,94 > stable, but we can also encourage people to move to 0.96. > > I personnaly have a 0.94 cluster that I will keep for few more month > because I don't have the ressouces to test the 0.96 migration yet. I guess > I'm not the only one in that situation. Many will want to see 0.96 being > 0.96.3 or more before starting the migration... > > I will not set a specific period of time for 0.94 to be maintain, but more > looking at the number of fixes done, and the interest for it, and > re-evaluate in few month. > > JM > > > 2013/9/3 lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > > With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing > > support for 0.94. > > > > 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. > > The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: > > > > 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime > > 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and > > servers > > 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible > > > > None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. > > Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process > including > > downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. > > > > I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is > > planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 > to > > 0.96. > > Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- Lars > > > -- Thanks & Regards, Anil Gupta
