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 19:51:50 GMT
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