> This of mine This opinion of mine*
On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 3:46 PM Matthew de Detrich <mdedetr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My opinion from > https://lists.apache.org/thread/tky5by9yfpyft52q0rhzzbbsdjp8vo95 > hasn't really changed. As stated in > https://lists.apache.org/thread/fv3rff6fpy01k2cq3rgl5zypxzh17223, the > most critical element is really how disruptive a 2.x.x release is to > the plugin/library ecosystem around Pekko. If we do this, every single > library/plugin for Pekko will be forced to maintain 2 branches, one > against Pekko 1.x.x and another against Pekko 2.x.x. > > This of mine can sway depending on proper feedback from users, i.e. > getting a gauge as to how many people are still reliant on JDK 1.8 > amongst the other listed points. Also I know that I am aware that we > have some dependencies we cannot update due to those dependencies not > supporting JDK 1.8 but in reality how critical is this? Specifically > its a big difference if those dependencies still maintain patch > release for the version branch that supports JDK 1.8 vs not. > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 2:48 PM kerr <hepin1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > And for Aeron, I remember @johannes.rudo...@gmail.com was suggested to drop > > the UDP one, then Aeron would not be needed. > > 何品 > > > > > > kerr <hepin1...@gmail.com> 于2024年12月28日周六 21:45写道： > > > > > +1 for 2.0.0 > > > PJFanning, I have upgraded all my systems to JDK 21, but many others are > > > still using JDK 11, maybe we should just start with minimal JDK 11 > > > required > > > instead of Java 17? > > > > > > > > > 何品 > > > > > > > > > PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> 于2024年12月28日周六 21:31写道： > > > > > >> Continues > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/o1x9x325s57czwngb4so8pmzbxt0k6nv > > >> > > >> My view at the moment: > > >> * that we should rename from 1.2.0 to 2.0.0 because this allows us to > > >> avoid repeated discussions about semver and allows us wide discretion > > >> to remove deprecated code and unused code > > >> * I still think that we want to maintain as much compatibility (source > > >> and binary) with Pekko 1.x.y as possible > > >> * we should go to Java 17 minimum. Aeron, one of our most important > > >> dependencies, has gone to Java 17 minimum. Spring is another lib that > > >> is Java 17 only. Jackson 3 will be Java 17 only. > > >> * we might need to start with Java 11 in dev because I think we could > > >> have issues with doc generation or elsewhere due to tooling that > > >> doesn't yet support Java 17 > > >> * we should drop active Scala 2.12 support because of Scala 2.13.15 > > >> usage warnings and Scala 3.4+ have moved to a position that makes > > >> Scala 2.12 support increasingly hard to keep > > >> * we continue to make important fixes to Pekko 1.1 and less frequently > > >> to Pekko 1.0 so that users stuck with old Java versions or Scala 2.12 > > >> can stick with Pekko 1.x.y but be assured that fixes will be made > > >> > > >> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 at 10:15, kerr <hepin1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I tried it locally in the recent PR, which upgraded to 2.13.15. Now, we > > >> > need three configurations for all the cross-scala versions. > > >> > It seems like Drop 2.12 and Java 8 are good options now. > > >> > > > >> > I think there will be 100+ files that need to be changed. > > >> > And because Scala 3.3.4 doesn't match the 2.13.15, I think we can't > > >> make it > > >> > both works at the same time. > > >> > > > >> > 何品 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Matthew de Detrich <mdedetr...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月22日周二 16:06写道： > > >> > > > >> > > > I would really like to avoid having to maintain several branches. > > >> > > > > >> > > I don't think there is a way around this if we want to respect users' > > >> > > requirements and/or follow SemVer. Maintaining multiple branches is > > >> also > > >> > > the norm when it comes to maintenance for non trivial sized projects > > >> and as > > >> > > long as the projects are mainly source/feature compatible its not > > >> that much > > >> > > more maintenance work, basically whenever a PR gets merged into 2.x.x > > >> we > > >> > > will also cherry pick it in 1.x.x. > > >> > > > > >> > > That being said, we should pick an optimal time to do this i.e. when > > >> the > > >> > > sbt build and other such features stabilizes for Pekko. I want to > > >> > > also > > >> > > integrate some formatting rules into Pekko but I am waiting for a new > > >> > > release of scalafmt, but basically we want to make sure as much as > > >> possible > > >> > > that the build/formatting etc ete are "stable" and so most/all code > > >> drops > > >> > > are just bug fixes/new features > > >> > > > > >> > > > So, I really hope that we can start doing 1.2 or 2.0 releases for > > >> some of > > >> > > the modules soon. We already have some PRs that would ideally not > > >> appear in > > >> > > a 1.1 release (new features, small API changes, dependencies upgrades > > >> that > > >> > > break java 8 compat, etc.). > > >> > > > > >> > > Since we happen to be following strict semver, if we are going to do > > >> this > > >> > > then it would need to be a v2.0. There are advantages to doing a 2 > > >> release > > >> > > as since its a breaking release we can add features, i.e. > > >> > > > > >> > > * The inlining work for Scala 3 specifically (we had to roll this > > >> back in > > >> > > Pekko 1.x because we accidentally broke bin compatibility and there > > >> was no > > >> > > way around it) > > >> > > * Remove all deprecated methods, this should really help with > > >> > > maintenance burden > > >> > > * Undo the @noinline changes specifically wrt to tracing/telemetry > > >> (we can > > >> > > classify this as a breaking change) but also open up an official API > > >> with > > >> > > opentelemetry/kamon > > >> > > * Drop Java 8 support and have Java 11 as min > > >> > > * Use Scala 3.6 LTS???? (really emphasize the ? here, I don't even > > >> know if > > >> > > its a good idea but Scala 3 has solved a few issues in the next LTS > > >> that > > >> > > was unsolvable in Scala 3.3 LTS series) > > >> > > * Drop all akka <-> pekko migration features > > >> > > * Upgrade to sbt 2.x for the build (this is coming out soon). > > >> > > > > >> > > The downside to this is that we need to maintain 2 branches and so do > > >> all > > >> > > community plugins, but the pro's are also quite strong. We > > >> essentially can > > >> > > reset from a clean slate and we only need to make sure that Pekko > > >> Cluster > > >> > > upgrades work from 1.x to 2.x. Also if we plan to do this, release > > >> pekko > > >> > > 2.x will take a bit longer but I think its worth it (there is no real > > >> rush > > >> > > and if we are going to make a breaking version release we may as well > > >> do it > > >> > > properly). > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 5:21 PM PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > I don't think we can support keeping all the version numbers in > > >> > > > sync > > >> > > > across all the Pekko modules. Pekko 1.1 is an exception because > > >> > > > * we needed to roll out the Scala 2 inlining across all the modules > > >> > > > * all our Pekko 1.0 modules are suffering from old dependencies due > > >> to > > >> > > our > > >> > > > decision to try to keep Pekko 1.0 dependencies as close as possible > > >> to > > >> > > the > > >> > > > last Akka Apache licensed releases to ease the switchover for Akka > > >> users > > >> > > - > > >> > > > and Pekko 1.1 modules have a much newer set of dependencies > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We can provide a doc page that lists our various modules and what > > >> > > versions > > >> > > > of other modules that they need. Also: as a place to keep track of > > >> the > > >> > > > latest release numbers. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I have a BOM project but that is of limited use because with sbt > > >> you need > > >> > > > a plugin and some scripting to support BOMs. > > >> > > > https://github.com/pjfanning/pekko-libraries-bom > > >> > > > > > >> > > > So, I really hope that we can start doing 1.2 or 2.0 releases for > > >> some of > > >> > > > the modules soon. We already have some PRs that would ideally not > > >> appear > > >> > > in > > >> > > > a 1.1 release (new features, small API changes, dependencies > > >> upgrades > > >> > > that > > >> > > > break java 8 compat, etc.). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I don't mind if we only remove Java 8 support in a few places. > > >> > > > Pekko > > >> > > > Connectors could become a mess though - with some connectors > > >> needing Java > > >> > > > 11 or 17 minimum while others still support Java 8. Anything Slick > > >> > > related > > >> > > > will need Java 11 as HikariCP has driven them to now target Java > > >> > > > 11. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On 2024/10/14 10:33:26 Arnout Engelen wrote: > > >> > > > > I would really like to avoid having to maintain several branches. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I'd be in favour of dropping Java 8 support, but if that means we > > >> feel > > >> > > > > pressure to maintain several branches, I'd rather merely > > >> officially > > >> > > > > deprecate it. I feel similarly about Scala 2.12. Perhaps we can > > >> indeed > > >> > > > > start by requiring a higher Java version in satellite projects, > > >> like > > >> > > > > pekko-persistence-jdbc or pekko-connectors? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I'm OK with dropping methods that were deprecated in Pekko 1.1.0 > > >> in > > >> > > > > the next major/minor version. We can do that whether or not we go > > >> with > > >> > > > > 1.2.0 or 2.0.0 for the version number if we follow > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> https://pekko.apache.org/docs/pekko/current/common/binary-compatibility-rules.html > > >> > > > > rather than 'strict semver'. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We should decide on how synchronized version numbers across core > > >> and > > >> > > > > satellite projects are. Ideally it should be easy to find out > > >> which > > >> > > > > versions are compatible with each other. On the other hand, we > > >> should > > >> > > > > be careful not to introduce too much churn on the maintainer > > >> > > > > side. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > If we release version 2.0.0 of pekko-management, that could still > > >> > > > > depend on pekko-core 1.1.0, I think, right? But because there may > > >> be > > >> > > > > breaking changes between pekko-core 1.x and 2.x, once we release > > >> > > > > pekko-core 2.0.0, we should also release new major versions of > > >> > > > > all > > >> > > > > satellite projects (i.e. 3.0.0 for pekko-management). So the > > >> invariant > > >> > > > > is: "you must use a matching major version across transitive > > >> > > > > dependencies, but you may upgrade to newer minor/patch versions > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > transitive dependencies". > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This might be a reason to be sparse with major version updates, > > >> and at > > >> > > > > least go with 1.2.0 for the next pekko-core version: this would > > >> save > > >> > > > > us from having to do another round of releases of all satellite > > >> > > > > projects that just bump versions. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Kind regards, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Arnout > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 5:47 PM PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > We have another discussion open about doing a Pekko 1.1.0 > > >> release. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > After we get that released, we will have to do 1.1.0 releases > > >> for > > >> > > > > > other other Pekko modules (HTTP, gRPC, Connectors, etc.). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > At the same time, we would need to decide on what to do about > > >> the > > >> > > next > > >> > > > > > release after that. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I would suggest that we should consider making that next > > >> release a > > >> > > > > > 2.0.0 release - one where we get to remove some deprecated code > > >> and > > >> > > > > > potentially update the minimum Java and Scala versions that we > > >> > > > > > support. > > >> > > > > > We will continue to do patch releases for Pekko 1.0.x and Pekko > > >> 1.1.x > > >> > > > > > so users who are affected by us dropping some things are not > > >> going to > > >> > > > > > be too badly affected. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > * Drop Scala 2.12 support? The Scala 2.12 compiler has some > > >> > > > > > type > > >> > > > > > inference issues that complicate our code. The next Scala 3 LTS > > >> > > > > > version looks like it will have some changes that will make it > > >> more > > >> > > > > > different from Scala 2.12. > > >> > > > > > * Go to Java 11 or even 17 as a minimum Java version? We > > >> already have > > >> > > > > > issues in Pekko Connectors where we are stuck on older > > >> dependency > > >> > > > > > versions because those dependencies have moved on from Java 8. > > >> > > > > > * Drop the methods and classes that were deprecated in Akka > > >> before we > > >> > > > > > split out Pekko? > > >> > > > > > * Possibly remove some of the methods and classes that we > > >> deprecated > > >> > > > in Pekko 1? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > What does everyone think? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > >> > > > > Arnout Engelen > > >> > > > > ASF Security Response > > >> > > > > Apache Pekko PMC member, ASF Member > > >> > > > > NixOS Committer > > >> > > > > Independent Open Source consultant > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > > >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org
