accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Question about 1.7 bugfix releases
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:17:37 GMT
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Christopher <> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM Sean Busbey <> wrote:
>> Many users in enterprise spaces have rules for upgrading to
>> a new maintenance release that are different from upgrading to a new
>> minor release. Those rules presume a uniform understanding of the
>> risks involved in each of those kinds of releases that I don't think
>> exists, especially across open source projects, but nonetheless those
>> are the rules the organization is stuck with. For those users,
>> continued maintenance releases that include critical bug fixes are key
>> to allowing them to consume our releases.
> I agree that occurs, but I also think that such rules in enterprises don't
> exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of what the project itself is
> doing. Choosing to upgrade to a new maintenance release is only an option
> when the upstream project is still producing maintenance releases. Since
> that's at the core of what this discussion is about, the question becomes
> something like "If we do this, will we be encouraging [enterprise and
> other] users to use the latest minor.patch release on their next upgrade
> cycle, or are we discouraging them from upgrading at all?" I don't know the
> answer, but if it's the latter, the next question is "Can we correct for
> any misperceived risks by better communicating what we know about upgrade
> risks to newer minor versions?" I don't know the answer to that question,
> either.
> In my experience with my "enterprise" customers, the reluctance to upgrade
> seems to apply equally to all versions. I recently provided support to
> somebody still running 1.5.0, in spite of the 1.5 line being on 1.5.4 and
> *very* EOL, because of reluctance to upgrade.

In my limited experience, when ASF projects don't reliably make
maintenance releases, enterprise customers turn to vendors to provide
a source of conservative updates. Phrased another way, it's a thing
that I see pointed to for why a decision maker might pick a vendor
"powered by" an asf project rather than asf blessed releases.


View raw message