Also big +1 from me. On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 09:08 Huaxiang Sun <[email protected]> wrote:
> Per performance regression concern, we had one such issue for meta when > upgrading from 1.2 to 2.3. > It turned out to be default rpc scheduling changed from branch-1 to > branch-2, and it causes performance regression. Huaxiang, do you have a JIRA covering this change? What is your suggested remediation for branch-2 releases? Can/should we make the fix the default behavior, or is there good reason to keep us running in this “slow mode” by default, require operators to opt-in to the perf boost? Thanks, Nick On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:22 AM Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 on EOL branch-1 and all branch-1.x. > > > > Regards, > > Pankaj > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 3:34 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ? > > > > > > There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond > > > occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibility > > > guidelines, branch-1 commits must be compatible with Java 7, and the > > range > > > of acceptable versions of third party dependencies is also restricted > due > > > to Java 7 compatibility requirements. Most developers are writing code > > with > > > Java 8+ idioms these days. For that reason and because the branch-1 > code > > > base is generally aged at this point, all but trivial (or lucky!) > > backports > > > require substantial changes in order to integrate adequately. Let me > also > > > observe that branch-1 artifacts are not fully compatible with Java 11 > or > > > later. (The shell is a good example of such issues: The version of > > > jruby-complete required by branch-1 is not compatible with Java 11 and > > > upgrading to the version used by branch-2 causes shell commands to > error > > > out due to Ruby language changes.) > > > > > > We can a priori determine there is insufficient motivation for > production > > > of release artifacts for the PMC to vote upon. Otherwise, someone would > > > have done it. We had 12 releases from branch-2 derived code in 2019, 13 > > > releases from branch-2 derived code in 2020, and so far we have had 3 > > > releases from branch-2 derived code in 2021. In contrast, we had 8 > > releases > > > from branch-1 derived code in 2019, 0 releases from branch-1 in 2020, > and > > > so far 0 releases from branch-1 in 2021. > > > > > > * 2021202020191.x0282.x31312* > > > > > > If there is someone interested in continuing branch-1, now is the time > to > > > commit. However let me be clear that simply expressing an abstract > desire > > > to see continued branch-1 releases will not be that useful. It will be > > > noted, but will not have much real world impact. Apache is a do-ocracy. > > In > > > the absence of intrinsic motivation of project participants, which is > > what > > > we seem to have here, you will need to do something: Fix the > > compatibility > > > issues, if any between the last release of 1.x and the current branch-1 > > > head; fix any failing and flaky unit tests; produce release artifacts; > > and > > > submit those artifacts to the PMC for voting. Or, convince someone with > > > commit rights and/or PMC membership to undertake these actions on your > > > behalf. > > > > > > Otherwise, I respectfully submit for your consideration, it is time to > > > declare branch-1 and all 1.x code lines EOL, simply acknowledging what > > has > > > effectively already happened. > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrew > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > > decrepit hands > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > >
