zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Releasing 3.6.0 - ALPHA or not ?
Date Tue, 01 Oct 2019 14:11:09 GMT
Enrico these are good ideas, thoughts below:

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:09 AM Norbert Kalmar <nkalmar@cloudera.com.invalid>

> Hi,
> 3.5 had a lot of new features that wasn't really finalized, so API changed
> until stable 3.5 (3.5.5). But I don't think this is the case with 3.6.0, we
> have complete and pretty much finalized features as far as I can tell.
> Also, it did confuse me that with the beta and alpha releases on 3.5 minor
> version jumped as well. So if we want to stick with alpha/beta qualifier,
> let's keep it at 3.6.0-alpha and 3.6.0-beta (not like 3.6.2-beta).
That is a good point Norbert. We did try to say "alpha/beta is unstable"
(apis/code/etc...). That worked fairly well, but we were in that state for
so long that people started using it in production and then got upset when
we did change the APIs (whatever). As such I would say this is only
partially successful. Perhaps it would have been more successful if we had
limited the beta time down more, however folks kept increasing the scope
(by committing new features to 3.5 rather than trunk) and that ended up
continually pushing out the dates.

> I don't know any change that would justify an "alpha" version, so maybe a
> beta would be better? But I'm also just fine releasing just "3.6.0". Bugfix
> version is zero, everyone pretty much knows what that means :)

Perhaps a limited "beta" to allow folks to bang on it, then a planned move
to "stable"? You could say we'll release it as beta for 3 months then move
to stable if there are no major issues. The problem with just releasing
straight to stable is that many folks won't try it out from source and
would only try a binary.


> So I lean toward leaving alpha and beta out of the version.
> Regards,
> Norbert
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 2:34 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > We are close to a release for 3.6.0, currently master branch is full of
> > important features and important refactors.
> >
> > On the VOTE thread for 3.5.6 it came out that we could release 3.6.0 as
> > "ALPHA", here are my thoughts.
> >
> > I think we have at least these kind of "users":
> > - Companies that run the Server on the most recent "stable" release
> > - Companies that running a ZooKeeper cluster just because another system
> > depends on it (HBase, Kafka,Solr, Pulsar....)
> > - Library maintainers (Kafka, BookKeeper, HBase), they depend on a
> version
> > of the client or on some feature of the server
> > - Application developers
> > - Big companies that maintain their own forks and/or are using the
> "master"
> > version
> >
> > With my library maintainer hat I feel I cannot depend on some "ALPHA"
> > version of ZooKeeper client and make my users setup  an ALPHA version of
> > the server.
> > It happened on BookKeeper for instance, we started to depend on ZK 3.5
> but
> > as it was BETA so we needed to revert back to 3.4.
> > I think that some similar story happened in Kafka, now that we have 3.5
> > with SSL support users are going to migrate.
> >
> > If there is no blocker issue on 3.6.0 I feel we should dare to release it
> > as "stable", we can always suggest users and companies to try out current
> > master and give feedback.
> >
> > I am new to this story of tagging as "ALPHA"/"BETA" on ZooKeeper, but as
> an
> > user and library maintainer I suffered a lot that '-ALPHA' and '-BETA'
> > suffixes.
> > I know that ZooKeeper is the core of most of the other systems and we
> > should not suggest to use something that it is "experimental", but as far
> > as I know we are taking great care about being backward compatible and
> > about the quality of our code base.
> >
> > Other opinions ?
> >
> > Enrico
> >

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