zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Question about 3.5.0 stability and versioning
Date Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:34:26 GMT
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/).


On September 10, 2015 at 12:18:19 PM, Chris Nauroth (cnauroth@hortonworks.com<mailto:cnauroth@hortonworks.com>)

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>>

>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>>
>> 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
>>> that 3.5 releases will introduce incompatible changes in terms of
>>> and client-server combination?
>>> Also, would you say that that 3.5.0 and it's new features can be used
>>> 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
>>>>> When looking at the homepage, it sais the 3.5 release "is alpha
>>>>> 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
>>>>> release.
>>>>> In addition, the devs seem to be gearing up for a 3.5.1 release[2],
>>>>> 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
>>>>> I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me a bit.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Sam
>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/releases
>>>>> [2]

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