We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it has worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the EC2 environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when...
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should proceed > as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points to. > > As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce then > there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep it > in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not throw > up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features arrive > in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release > compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions). > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
