zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From galo <anglorva...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about 3.5.0 stability and versioning
Date Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:04:53 GMT
+1

Also, accompanying the announcement with a schedule and checklist to get
3.5 to beta and final would be useful from a users PoV (and make it easier
for non regular contributors to give a hand).

Cheers,
Galo
On 11 Sep 2015 9:36 am, "Martin Grotzke" <martin.grotzke@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> I'd prefer to have a more common sense compatible versioning rather sooner
> than later. Just announce the change in the release notes and perhaps
> describe versioning semantics on the web page.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> Am 11.09.2015 08:34 schrieb "Chris Nauroth" <cnauroth@hortonworks.com>:
>
> > Thanks for the pointer, Jordan.  I hadn't realized that the semver spec
> > covered alpha tagging like this.
> >
> > I think it's a good direction, but I also wonder if it would only create
> > more confusion to change the convention mid-way through the 3.5 release
> > stream now.  Maybe we just need to take this as a lesson learned for next
> > time.
> >
> > Do others have thoughts on this?
> >
> > --Chris Nauroth
> >
> > From: Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com<mailto:
> > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>>
> > Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:26 AM
> > To: Chris Nauroth <cnauroth@hortonworks.com<mailto:
> > cnauroth@hortonworks.com>>, "user@zookeeper.apache.org<mailto:
> > user@zookeeper.apache.org>" <user@zookeeper.apache.org<mailto:
> > user@zookeeper.apache.org>>
> > Subject: Re: Question about 3.5.0 stability and versioning
> >
> > I was expecting that the target release would be 3.5.0 and that there
> > would be a 3.5.0-alpha1, 3.5.0-alpha2, 3.5.0-beta1, etc. The semantic
> > versioning spec describes similar things (http://semver.org/).
> >
> > -Jordan
> >
> >
> >
> > On September 10, 2015 at 12:18:19 PM, Chris Nauroth (
> > cnauroth@hortonworks.com<mailto:cnauroth@hortonworks.com>) wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, the -alpha suffix also is unconventional for package management.
> > ZOOKEEPER-2124 shows how this caused some irritation for RPM builds.
> >
> > Jordan, do you have any suggestions on how we can better communicate
> > "release X.Y.Z is alpha quality" to downstream consumers? The
> > documentation links at zookeeper.apache.org already call out that 3.4.6
> is
> > "stable". Would it be sufficient simply to label the other releases there
> > as "alpha" or "API unstable" and add appropriate warnings around the
> > download links?
> >
> > --Chris Nauroth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/10/15, 6:52 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
> > <mailto:jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>> wrote:
> >
> > >More on this...
> > >
> > >I think you are sowing tremendous confusion with the "-alpha" suffix
> > >on the releases. To my eye, when I see "3.5.0-alpha" I read "alpha
> > >version of 3.5.0". But that's not what is intended. 3.5.0-alpha is
> > >intended to mean "version 3.5.0 which is an alpha level release".
> > >Further complicating the picture is that there is now a "3.5.0-alpha"
> > >and a "3.5.1-alpha". I hadn't followed the original thread and was
> > >very confused by this and I'm very close to the ZooKeeper community.
> > >Imagine the confusion for the casual user. Additionally, as others
> > >have pointed out, only some of the functionality is alpha. It's not as
> > >if this is a complete re-write. At the end of this process there will
> > >be 5 or more versions of ZK on Maven Central with various suffixes.
> > >Most users will be very confused.
> > >
> > >On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org
> <mailto:
> > phunt@apache.org>> wrote:
> > >> Hi Sam. See this thread. http://markmail.org/message/ymxliy2rrwjc2pmo
> > >>
> > >> 3.5.0 is an alpha release. 3.5.1 will also be an alpha release. Likely
> > >> there will be a number more, as part of alphas we allow backward
> > >> incompatible changes, etc... Once we reach beta we'll lock down the
> > >> apis and such (again, see the above thread for more detail).
> > >>
> > >> Note: there seems to be some automation on github that marks things as
> > >> "releases". afaik we are not doing that ourselves - those are mirrors
> > >> of our internal svn repository.
> > >>
> > >> Patrick
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Sam Weisberg
> > >> <samweisberg@openmailbox.org<mailto:samweisberg@openmailbox.org>>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Flavio,
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks for your reply.
> > >>> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the 3.5.0 release
> in
> > >>> itself can be considered stable in terms of software quality, but the
> > >>> feature set may change during the 3.5 maintenance cycle? If so, is
it
> > >>>likely
> > >>> that 3.5 releases will introduce incompatible changes in terms of
> > >>>ensemble
> > >>> and client-server combination?
> > >>> Also, would you say that that 3.5.0 and it's new features can be used
> > >>>in
> > >>> production?
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Sam
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2015-03-21 12:29, Flavio Junqueira wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Sam,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The label "alpha" refers to an alpha release of the 3.5 branch,
not
> an
> > >>>> alpha version of 3.5.0. We typically only have bug fixes for the
> minor
> > >>>> releases of a branch, and for 3.5, we have used alpha to say that
> the
> > >>>> release is indeed unstable and that major changes could come with
> > >>>> later releases of the branch.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I suppose we could have done 3.5.0-alpha, 3.5.0-beta, 3.5.0 or
some
> > >>>> similar sequence, but that isn't the current thinking afaict.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Flavio
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 21 Mar 2015, at 09:08, Sam Weisberg <
> samweisberg@openmailbox.org
> > <mailto:samweisberg@openmailbox.org>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi list,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I am a little confused about the versioning of the 3.5 release
> > >>>>>branch.
> > >>>>> When looking at the homepage, it sais the 3.5 release "is alpha
> > >>>>>quality"
> > >>>>> and it is suffixed with a -alpha tag.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> When I first looked at the github releases[1] however, it seams
to
> > >>>>> indicate that there has already been a 3.5 release candidate
and a
> > >>>>>3.5
> > >>>>> release.
> > >>>>> In addition, the devs seem to be gearing up for a 3.5.1 release[2],
> > >>>>>which
> > >>>>> would be curious if there was not even a stable 3.5.0 release.
> > >>>>> There is also no longer an active milestone for 3.5.0 in Jira.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Considering all that, I have a bit of trouble understanding
the
> > >>>>> implications of the -alpha suffix of the 3.5.0 release.
> > >>>>> Can the 3.5.0 release be considered stable and is just not
widely
> > >>>>>used?
> > >>>>> I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me
a bit.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>> Sam
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/releases
> > >>>>> [2]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201502.mbox/%3
> > >>>>>CCANLc_9JktxbnYuyW2EbvFEcRoaZWMsPf38YdoM=5JLWLUsZDNA@mail.gmail.com
> > %3E<mailto:CCANLc_9JktxbnYuyW2EbvFEcRoaZWMsPf38YdoM=
> > 5JLWLUsZDNA@mail.gmail.com%3E>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>

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