Hi, Another example is https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/a753172ad3e0927f412fb56e468c95a9a81ba3ad We deprecated our log4j1 appender in 3.8.0 and it's been removed in 4.0.0. Kafka 3.8.0 released in May 2024, so it's less than 1 year.
Thanks, Mickael On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 4:40 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > From > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Time+Based+Release+Plan > > > We break compatibility (i.e. remove deprecated public methods after a > > reasonable period, and typically wait 1 year after deprecation). > > To me, given that we do 3 releases per year, "1 year" as stated above > and 3 releases, is just the same thing. > > I am also happy to follow Ismael's proposal and say "at least 3 releases > _and_ a minimum of 12 months". > > > -Matthias > > > On 3/3/25 6:48 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > Hi Chia-Ping and Bruno, > > > > Right. Matthias stated that the 3 releases rule is the source of truth and > > I don't recall that being the case. The source of truth is 12 months - I > > was one of the people who was part of that discussion when the Scala > > consumer was removed. I also disagree that the 3 releases rule is strictly > > better since we can sometimes have shorter release cycles (like the intent > > with the 3.9 release). I am ok with adjusting the rule to be "at least 3 > > releases _and_ a minimum of 12 months" as part of this KIP, but we should > > be clear that we're proposing a change as part of this KIP (vs following an > > existing rule). > > > > Ismael > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:24 AM Bruno Cadonna <cado...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I suspect that the three-release-rule was a derivation from the > >> 1-year-rule since we usually have three releases in one year. > >> > >> IMO, a three-release rule is easier to reason about, because you don't > >> need to know when the release took place. > >> > >> However, I recognize that the 1-year-rule seems to be the official rule. > >> > >> Best, > >> Bruno > >> > >> On 03.03.25 09:58, Chia-Ping Tsai wrote: > >>> hi Ismael > >>> > >>> The thread[0] contains a brief discussion about the one-year rule. I've > >>> also updated the KIP page[1] to highlight this rule. However, declaring > >>> [3.7-3.9] as API compatible with 4.0 can be unrelated to the one-year > >> rule. > >>> We can do this for consistency, ensuring clients, Streams, and Connect > >> have > >>> the same version range. Additionally, we can address this by reverting a > >>> minor commit. If we don't agree on consistency, we can update the KIP to > >>> include different API compatibility versions for Connect. > >>> > >>> [0] https://lists.apache.org/thread/j7n4qqsvxz84f5cg89kdm9foby36j28n > >>> [1] > >>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=65867320&selectedPageVersions=9&selectedPageVersions=8 > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Chia-Ping > >>> > >> > >> > > >
