cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 4.9+ release
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:34:03 GMT
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, John Burwell <john.burwell@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> Rajani,
>
> By the rules of semantic versioning (which we follow), incrementing the
> major version should only occur if there there is a change that breaks
> backwards compatibility of the API, removes support for a integrated
> component, or otherwise reduces/removes existing functionality.


my question was to check if anyone is working on such a change. Based on
the replies, I think its a NO.


> Assuming we targeting late August 2016 for the next release, it is a bit
> short notice to introduce such changes.  Therefore, the next release should
> be 4.10.
>
My opinions is, its never too late. Since no one is working on any such
feature, we need not get into that discussion now.

>
> I have opened a discussion to determine if/when we should have a 5.0.0
> release in order to provide developers and users with sufficient notice for
> such significant changes.
>
The challenge is to find out who is doing the hard work for such features.

Thanks,
Rajani


>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> >
> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:31 AM, Rajani Karuturi <rajani@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I like this discussion. But, my original question was not about what
> should
> > the next release number be?
> >
> > i was checking if anyone working on anything big and hence want the next
> > release to be 5.0?
> >
> > ~Rajani
> >
> > <http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> maybe I should have answered here instead of the other thread :S
> >>
> >> I am all with John on this. I can not judge the dates but the overall
> ideas
> >> are spot on.
> >>
> >> I now see the API weren't mentioned in this thread I think they should.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:53 AM, ilya <ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree and support John's comments below.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> ilya
> >>>
> >>> On 6/14/16 2:44 PM, John Burwell wrote:
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Completely agree with Daan.  Per semantic versioning, a major revision
> >>> increase must introduce a backwards incompatible change in the public
> >> API,
> >>> removal of one of more supported devices, reduction in the list of
> >>> supported distributions.  I agree that when we require Java8+, drop
> >> Ubuntu
> >>> 12.04 support, drop support for an old hypervisor version, etc,  we
> will
> >>> need to increment the major revision to reflect the fact that the
> release
> >>> is not backwards compatible.
> >>>>
> >>>> For 4.10 and LTS 4.9.0_1, I see it as critical that we support running
> >>> on either Java7 or Java8.  In particular, producing an LTS release that
> >>> only supports a JVM that has been unsupported for nearly 18 months
> would
> >>> make it DOA in many shops.
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems like it would make sense to have a 5.0.0 release that removed
> >>> support for a number of legacy components (e.g. Xen 6.0 possibly 6.2,
> >>> Java7, CentOS 5, etc), as well as, internal improvements (e.g.
> simplified
> >>> configuration).  The focus of this release would be to reduce the
> >> footprint
> >>> of codebase, as well as, make a set of backwards incompatible changes
> >> that
> >>> further decouples plugins from core.  We would then plan for a 6.0.0 in
> >>> 4Q2017 to introduce further architectural changes and API revisions.
> The
> >>> advantage to this approach is that it breaks up the large refactorings
> >> and
> >>> architectural design changes — allowing us to gain velocity by removing
> >>> legacy components, reducing the risk of these changes, and providing
> user
> >>> benefit earlier.  Based on the release plan I previously proposed we
> have
> >>> the following releases remaining in 2016 and in early 2017:
> >>>>
> >>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016
> >>>> * 4.11 releasing on or about 23 October 2016
> >>>> * 4.12 releasing on or about 18 December 2016
> >>>> * 4.13 release on or about 5 February 2017
> >>>>
> >>>> 4.12 seems to be the sweet spot in the schedule to cut the 5.0.0
> >> release
> >>> described above.  It would give us sometime to plan and gain consensus
> >>> around the changes in both the user and dev communities.  It would also
> >>> allow the second LTS release to be based on 5.0.0 — allowing both
> release
> >>> cycles to take advantage of the reduced support requirements and Java8
> >>> language features. Based on this proposal, the releases above would
> >> change
> >>> to the following:
> >>>>
> >>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016
> >>>> * 4.11 releasing on or about 23 October 2016
> >>>> * 5.0.0 releasing on or about 18 December 2016
> >>>> * 5.1.0 release on or about 5 February 2017
> >>>>
> >>>> I am in the process of moving my proposal into the wiki.  If this
> >>> approach is acceptable, I will reflect it there, and open a thread to
> >>> discuss 5.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> -John
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
> >>>> www.shapeblue.com
> >>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
> >>>> @shapeblue
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 Daan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My recollection was that major version number changes were only
to be
> >>> triggered by breaks in backward compatibility (API).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul Angus
> >>>>>
> >>>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
> >>>>> www.shapeblue.com
> >>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> >>>>> @shapeblue
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> >>>>> Sent: 14 June 2016 14:47
> >>>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>>>> Cc: Rajani Karuturi <rajani@apache.org>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: 4.9+ release
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You know that would require more then one byte for our minor version,
> >>> Will.
> >>>>> I would be very pleased to go to 5.0 before that time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Will Stevens <wstevens@cloudops.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Daan is just trying to get us to version 4.256.  :P
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *Will STEVENS*
> >>>>>> Lead Developer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> >>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com
*|*
> >> tw
> >>>>>> @CloudOps_
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Daan Hoogland
> >>>>>> <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -1 to what Wido said. None of those points warant a major
release
> >>>>>>> number upgrade. these should all be in 4.10, -.11, -12 etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> major incompatibilities like API refactor, dropping backend
support
> >>>>>>> for this or that hyporvisor or DB refactor are the things
that
> >>>>>>> warrant 5.0, IMNSHO
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Will Stevens
> >>>>>>> <williamstevens@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1. :)
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2016 5:07 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@widodh.nl>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Op 14 juni 2016 om 10:55 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<
> >>>>>> rajani@apache.org
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 4.10 or 5.0?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would say 4.10
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We are in the 4.* release cycle from a long
time.
> >>>>>>>>>> Just wanted to check if anyone is planning on
major changes
> >>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>> warrants
> >>>>>>>>>> 5.0
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 5.0 should imho be:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> - Java 8
> >>>>>>>>> - Ubuntu 16.04 / systemd support
> >>>>>>>>> - Drop support for older libvirt versions (KVM)
> >>>>>>>>> - Some killer feature(s)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wido
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ~Rajani
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Daan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Daan
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daan
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message