Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL5zq9an2Ns1aX9i92A=wcSMoadJajgex1ZkmtqYTb3-Mc_DLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL5zq9bZgKVOaPu_OdVZ0mF4nQ7t9uEvjsV_nzJvwsqqUqeMvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <30741de9-e412-edda-e1b1-713cf54fc669@apache.org> <CAL5zq9Yykuha4CayHw6urTOu6RTrZk3b=Ppa=wNsmFn9fA-F+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6Jz4WMPjcC6sWW=OzDwxVwFAbxnqsJTbwC22x60EMN5RQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL5zq9an2Ns1aX9i92A=wcSMoadJajgex1ZkmtqYTb3-Mc_DLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:17:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGHyZ6+eKtCatBCqWJRR4DwCdZXUUi18KwEpwr9YbakLaysivA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Question about 1.7 bugfix releases
To: "dev@accumulo apache. org" <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
archived-at: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:18:04 -0000

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> 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.

-- 
busbey