This feels like a good compromise to me. Backporting to 5.0 since it's a relatively new release + disabled by default + rollback support.
Otherwise it feels weird backporting to 4.1 but not 4.0, and backporting to both would increase the risk and maintenance burden. On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 3:30 PM Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm +1 on backporting to 5.0...but more like -0.5 to any 4.x back-porting. > That feels like a good balance of both making a useful feature available > and encouraging modernization. > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 1:23 PM Brandon Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 1:02 PM Jaydeep Chovatia >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > One of the practices we follow locally is to perform a two-step >> rollout: the first cut includes only schema changes, and the second >> includes the feature. That way, we can safely roll back the feature without >> worrying about backward compatibility. >> >> You will still be locked to the version you upgraded to though, since >> downgrading will throw exceptions on the now modified schema. If >> someone discovers a regression after upgrading, they will be stuck. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Brandon >> >
