zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Flavio P JUNQUEIRA <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Zookeeper with SSL release date
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:09:20 GMT
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