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 Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:33:54 GMT
Forgive me, as I have not long been an active member of the zookeeper
community (other than as a grateful user over the last 3 years or so).

If I understand correclty, 3.5.X has been alpha for several years or so
now?  I think if there isn't a plan to have a stable release soon (say
within another year), it's a problem.  It should be about having a regular
release cycle, with the hope that new features and bug fixes become
available in a reasonable time.  If one feature is just not stable, then it
shouldn't block other features, etc.  Saying a feature is a major part of
3.5, doesn't quite make sense in this formulation.  Instead releases
incorporate features, and if features get delayed, they can be postponed to
a subsequent release.

The issue is that we have people saying they don't want to fix things in
3.4.X (or back port fixes from 3.5.X to 3.4.X).  But if 3.5.X is still
literally still years away (after having been under development for years),
we should re-evaluate, no?

Jason

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:

> I'm not a huge fan of turning it off to be honest. Also just turning
> it off at the API level wouldn't be enough, we'd need to turn it off
> at the protocol level (otw it could still be accessed).
>
> I'd rather see us address it than kick it down the road. It's a major
> feature of 3.5.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org> wrote:
> > The main issue to sort out is stability of the API. There is a security
> concern around the fact that clients can freely reconfigure the ensemble.
> If we follow the plan that Pat proposed some time ago:
> >
> >
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCANLc_9KG6-Dhm=wwfuwzNioGK70pg+iHMHPigYfJDSLf9-eq6Q@mail.gmail.com%3E
> <
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCANLc_9KG6-Dhm=wwfuwzNioGK70pg+iHMHPigYfJDSLf9-eq6Q@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> > Locking the API is the main step to move it to beta. Sorting out bugs is
> definitely necessary, but it isn't the main thing that is keeping 3.5 in
> alpha.
> >
> > About making it experimental, I was raising the option of having a
> switch that disables the API calls, not the code. The reason why that could
> work is that anyone using 3.5 who uses the "experimental" API must explicit
> turn on the switch and enable the calls. If they do it, they need to be
> aware that the API can change.
> >
> >  I must say that I haven't really looked closely into doing it, and I'm
> not even entirely convinced that this is a good idea, but since Jason
> raised the point, I'm exploring options.
> >
> > -Flavio
> >
> >> On 16 Mar 2016, at 20:59, Alexander Shraer <shralex@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Looking at the list of ~50 blocker and critical bugs in ZooKeeper, only
> 3-4
> >> are related to reconfig. Given this, and the fact that it is run in
> >> production since 2012 in multiple companies, I don't think its more
> >> unstable than any other part of ZooKeeper.
> >>
> >> There are multiple reconfig-related bugs that turned out really
> difficult
> >> to debug without access to the actual system or at least to the Hudson
> >> machines where some tests are failing. In the past, Michi and I
> physically
> >> went to Hortonworks to debug one such issue, but this is of course not a
> >> good method, and we weren't able to arrange such a visit again.
> >>
> >> Regarding making it optional - the reconfig logic has several different
> >> parts, some would be really difficult to disable using a configuration
> >> parameter. But the actual dynamic expansion of the cluster is triggered
> by
> >> the reconfig command, so it should not affect users who don't invoke it.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Flavio P JUNQUEIRA <fpj@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I suppose we could give it a try. How do other folks feel about it?
> >>>
> >>> -Flavio
> >>> On 16 Mar 2016 19:52, "Jason Rosenberg" <jbr@squareup.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So, you could enable the dynamic reconfiguration feature behind a
> config
> >>>> option, and document that it should only be enabled experimentally,
> use
> >>> at
> >>>> your own risk.  Keep it off by default.  Allow only static config by
> >>>> default, until it's stable?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Jason,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The consumer in Kafka is pretty independent from the core (brokers),
> >>>>> that's how that project manages to make such a separation. We don't
> >>> have
> >>>>> the same with ZooKeeper as the feature we are talking about is part
> of
> >>>> the
> >>>>> server and the only way I see of doing what you say is to turn off
> >>>>> features. More specifically, we'd need to disable the reconfig API
> and
> >>> do
> >>>>> not allow any change to the configuration, even though the code
is
> >>> there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reconfig here refers to the ability of changing the configuration
of
> an
> >>>>> ensemble (e.g., changing the set of servers).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Flavio
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 16 Mar 2016, at 19:14, 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