zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rosenberg <...@squareup.com>
Subject Re: Zookeeper with SSL release date
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:15:08 GMT
By the way, would someone formally describe what is meant by the "re-config
feature"?

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Jason Rosenberg <jbr@squareup.com> wrote:

> So, it would seem sensible to me to have a release where all features are
> stable, except where noted.  E.g. mark certain features as only 'alpha
> quality', e.g. the 're-config feature'.  (I assume it's possible to happily
> use 3.5.X without exercising the unstable re-config bits?).
>
> There's precedent for doing this sort of thing in other projects, e.g. in
> Kafka, they've had several release where a new "Consumer API" is shipped
> that is available for beta-testing, but you can still just use the older
> stable consumer api, etc.
>
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, powell molleti <
> powellm79@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug,
>> Is 3.5 being an alpha release preventing you from using it?. Or have you
>> run into issues with it?. In general perhaps ZK 3.5 being labeled as alpha
>> might not be fair, since it is far more stable then what most people
>> associate an alpha release to be.
>> Perhaps if you do not use re-config feature may be it will just work for
>> you?.
>> There are many examples of 3.5.X being used in productions from my
>> limited knowledge.
>> ThanksPowell.
>>
>>     On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:44 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
>> fpj@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  None of us expected the reconfig changes to take this long to stabilize.
>> Until we get there, I don't think we can do anything else with 3.5. The
>> best bet we have is to work harder to bring 3.5 into a stable rather than
>> trying to work around it.
>>
>> There are lots of people interested in seeing 3.5 stable, and if we get
>> everyone to contribute more patches and code reviews, we should be able to
>> do it sooner. After all, it is a community based effort, so the community
>> shouldn't rely on just 2-3 people doing the work.
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>> > On 15 Mar 2016, at 17:28, Chris Nauroth <cnauroth@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Doug, I forgot to respond to your question about 3.4.  Since 3.4 is the
>> > stable maintenance line, we are very conservative about back-porting to
>> > it.  Our policy is to limit back-ports to critical bug fixes and not
>> > introduce any new features in the 3.4 line.  This is a matter of
>> managing
>> > risk.
>> >
>> > Jason, your question about release cadence is a fair one.  If it's any
>> > consolation, we are now taking the approach of trying to limit the scope
>> > of anything new introduced in 3.5 too.  That would allow us to focus on
>> > stabilization: resolving blocker bugs and freezing public APIs.  I think
>> > this will help us accelerate the releases into beta and eventual GA.
>> >
>> > I am new to ZooKeeper release management, so I'd like to hear thoughts
>> > from more experienced committers and PMC members about your proposal to
>> > try to cut a stable release for a limited subset of what is in
>> branch-3.5
>> > now.  My instinct is that it would be challenging to cherry-pick out
>> > pieces of branch-3.5 piecemeal at this point.  This would become another
>> > release line for an already resource-constrained volunteer staff to
>> > manage.  I'd prefer to dedicate those limited resources to overall 3.5
>> > stabilization.  Also, a 3.5 release in which certain features "vanished"
>> > because of not meeting some stability criteria would be undesirable.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/15/16, 10:12 AM, "Jason Rosenberg" <jbr@squareup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Chris,
>> >>
>> >> Can you say whether some parts of 3.5.X are more stable than others
>> (e.g.
>> >> if we don't care about certain new features, is it relatively stable)?
>> >> Would it be possible to cut out a version that only has the bits we
>> think
>> >> are stable (and release that)?
>> >>
>> >> From that timeline, and the historic release cadence, it would seem to
>> be
>> >> a
>> >> years away before we get to the stable release?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Jason
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <
>> cnauroth@hortonworks.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hello Doug,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for your interest in the SSL feature!
>> >>>
>> >>> At this point, I think we're still pretty far away from declaring a
>> >>> stable
>> >>> release in the 3.5 line.  I don't think we're close enough that anyone
>> >>> can
>> >>> offer a reliable ETA.  This is an earlier thread that describes the
>> >>> high-level strategy for release planning in the 3.5 line:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://s.apache.org/ADK1
>> >>>
>> >>> The next step is a 3.5.2-alpha release.  We're working on resolving
a
>> >>> few
>> >>> more blockers before we produce a release candidate.  Hopefully that
>> >>> will
>> >>> get done in the next few weeks.
>> >>>
>> >>> --Chris Nauroth
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 3/15/16, 9:39 AM, "Doug" <itsbehind@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I know it's only been a few months, but I was wondering if there
was
>> a
>> >>>> ballpark release date for a stable version of 3.5.1. Or is there
any
>> >>>> chance
>> >>>> the SSL feature would be added to 3.4.8? Just another person looking
>> to
>> >>>> have
>> >>>> that feature in a stable version. Thanks for all you do! :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> View this message in context:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Zookeeper-with-SSL-release-dat
>> >>> e
>> >>>> -tp7581744p7582136.html
>> >>>> Sent from the zookeeper-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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