cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why CloudStack 5
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2019 02:24:33 GMT
I would say that it is indeed a solid version. However, version 4.12 by
itself is not breaking anything. Therefore, according to the semantic
versioning, we cannot increase the ‘X’ bit.

It is also interesting to consider that 4.12 has over 188 PRs merged into
it. When we finish, we will probably hit almost 200 PRs. Many new features
were added, and we might have some hidden bugs that were not discovered
yet. Therefore, at least for me, it looks wiser to launch it as a normal
release and work on top of it to create 5.0.0 during July-August 2019. This
should provide 3-6 months of experimentation with the 4.12 version in
production.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:07 PM Tutkowski, Mike <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>
wrote:

> Is 4.12 a decent candidate to be branded 5.0 or might we be waiting for
> some specific set of backwards-incompatible updates?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 4:58 PM
> To: dev
> Cc: users
> Subject: Re: Why CloudStack 5
>
> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
>
>
>
>
> Hello Ivan,
> Can you provide reasons why not move to a version 5?
>
> To help you, I will provide why I think we should move to 5.0.0 after 4.12.
> Therefore, I would expect this 5.0.0 to be an LTS version as well.
>
> 1. To begin with, technically, we should already be in version 5 if we
> had been following the semantic versioning we say we follow. We broke
> compatibility when Midonet plugin was removed in 4.10, and later, also,
> when public APIs from the IAM projects were removed. You can discuss if
> those features were broken or not, and if they count as a backward
> incompatibility. All in all, it is a removal of public APIs;
> 2. We want to remove the basic network, and with this move, we can
> delete a load of complications and replicated code, which causes more
> burden than anything else;
> 3. There are also some other small details in some PRs, where these
> issues with backward compatibility are holding our code and structure
> improvements. Therefore, a CloudStack 5.0.0 would free us from these
> anchors that we keep dragging around;
> 4. A new database upgrade scheme…. I do not even need to get into this
> topic; all DEVs here know what I am talking about;
> 5. A proper JPA implementation, a real restful API, adopt a standard
> rest framework, and other base technological improvements would be awesome,
> but I would say that they are far from here now. And they will be always
> distant if we keep holding ourselves back.
>
> All in all, to conclude; it is not about the version number and marketing.
> At least for me, I could care less about the number. This is about the
> community being able to adopt new trends, new technology, new methods, and
> understanding that to move on, we need to let somethings go.
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:45 AM Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev_ia@bw-sw.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I decided whether to write it several weeks thinking about the stones and
> > rotten potatoes, but still decided to do that. Hope it will not raise the
> > stress level.
> >
> > Colleagues and ACS leaders, I would like to initiate the discussion. Why
> go
> > to CS5 rather than stay with 4.XX. Some thoughts are:
> >
> > 1. According to the versioning guide, the first number stands for radical
> > changes like if the community decided to go from current ORM to
> Hibernate.
> > I don't see the capabilities for such changes and there are no intentions
> > for the implementation.
> >
> > 2. I can realize that we 'stuck' with '4.XX' and the marketing can be
> > disappointing from that point of view. Then, OK, let's just skip the
> first
> > number "4." and release, ACS 13.X, 14.X, 15.X and so on. Every version
> will
> > receive new impressing version number and everyone could be happy about
> > that.
> >
> > Going to version "5" currently looks like as an intention to refresh but
> > with very poor motivation. At least to me.
> >
> > The discussion is strongly welcome.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev
> > Bitworks LLC
> > Cell RU: +7-923-414-1515
> > Cell USA: +1-201-257-1512
> > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/>
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>


-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

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