I don't care what we call it as long as 4.1 -> 5.1/6.0 upgrades are possible.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 1:28 PM David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> wrote: > Given our version support… if we do make this change does this imply users > must do the following to get to 6.0? > > 4.x upgrade to 5.0 > 5.0 upgrade to 6.0 > > So no 4.x to 6.0? Given that this is 5.1 atm we are expected to support > 4.x to 5.1 upgrades, but switching to 6.0 that isn’t true based off our > documentation > > On Dec 10, 2024, at 11:00 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > This is another topic we basically revisit afresh every time :) > > I think it’s fine to bump for marketing or vibe reasons, I would support > it. I don’t think we need to confect some weak semverish justification. > > Vibes ftw. > > Lets see if any strong contradicting opinions pop up on here in the next > few days; if not I'll draft up a revision to the wiki. Taking it on a > case-by-case release basis w/a respect for vibes sounds perfect to me. > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024, at 1:37 PM, Patrick McFadin wrote: > > I was waiting for this discussion to happen again. :p > > What you call marketing, I call end-user communication. I'll leave > this open question, but what do we want to communicate to the user > base, and how should they approach this new feature set? > > Patrick > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 10:10 AM Benedict Elliott Smith > <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > This is another topic we basically revisit afresh every time :) > > > > I think it’s fine to bump for marketing or vibe reasons, I would support > it. I don’t think we need to confect some weak semverish justification. > > > > > On 10 Dec 2024, at 13:01, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Even if TCM is api-compatible, it will change how operators run > > > Cassandra in a significant way (like, different procedures from every > > > previous version.) I think that justifies a major. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > Brandon > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 11:51 AM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> You’ve added a ton of API surface to transaction behavior and cluster > management. The TCM may or may not be strictly breaking, but they’re > fundamentally very very different, so even with semver as the only > standard, I think you can justify a major. > > >> > > >> But also, let’s just acknowledge that marketing is a thing and bump > the major to acknowledge the huge, massive, database-changing features, > even if they’re not meant to be disruptive. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Dec 10, 2024, at 9:46 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Currently we reserve MAJOR in semver changes for API breaking only: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=199530302#Patching,versioning,andLTSreleases-Versioningandtargeting > : > > >> > > >> That's consistent w/semver itself: link: > > >> > > >> Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: > > >> > > >> MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes > > >> MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible > manner > > >> PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes > > >> > > >> > > >> So absolute literal "correctness" of what we're doing aside, our > version numbers mean something to us as a dev community but also mean > something to Cassandra users. I'm not confident they mean the same thing to > each constituency. I'm also not comfortable with us prioritizing our own > version number needs over that of our users, should they differ in meaning. > > >> > > >> Does anybody have insight into how other well known widely adopted > projects do things we might be able to learn from? I generally only think > about this topic when a discussion like this comes up on our dev list so > don't have much insight to bring to the discussion. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024, at 11:52 AM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: > > >> > > >> The question is if we are signaling compatibility or purely marketing > with the release number. > > >> We dropped compatibility with a few things in 5.0, which was the > reason for the .0 rather than 4.2. I don’t know if we are breaking any > compatibility with current trunk? Though maybe some of the TCM stuff could > be considered that. > > >> If we are purely going for marketing value, then yes, I agree > TCM+Accord would be 6.0 worthy. > > >> > > >> -Jeremiah > > >> > > >> On Dec 10, 2024 at 10:48:21 AM, Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Keeping this short. I'm not sure why we're calling the next release > 5.1. TCM and Accord are a massive thing. Other .1 / .2 releases were the > .0 with some smaller things added. Imo this is a huge step forward, as big > as 5.0 was, so we should call it 6.0. > > >> > > >> > > > > >
