Versioning, naming and symver compliance

This topic has been raised during Summit Maintenance session.

Current proposal is to change major version X (v1.0.0, v2.0.0, etc) per release,
minor version Y (v1.1.0, v1.2.0, v1.3.0, etc) per cumulative monthly LTS release and patch version Z (v1.1.0, v1.1.1, v1.1.2 etc) in case of async releases (hotfixes).

IMO this naming is quite intuitive (looking at DISTRO_VERSION it’s easy to understand that version you’re running on) and provide some benefits in terms of urgent async fixes (for example v1.2.0 AND v1.1.9 may be released at the same day (embagroe lifted?))
This should be symver complaint as symver specification allows minor release to include patch changes and some improvements may be brought into minor releases by fixing bugs.

I’m fine with this. The only NIT objection I would raise is the fact that we bind minor number to the month number. I would just define it as an increment and if our cadence is monthly, it will happen to a monthly increment.

Good point. For sure we don’t want to skip the minor version in case if we skip the monthly release. Thanks!

Where are we with the discussion about two streams? We do start with one stream and then create the other one if there is demand?

Yes. That’s the plan for now.