I believe we should have all the features of the Akka core. Since this version is already part of Apache 2.0, we should have all the features, allowing us to offer what others have. As for user feedback, I think users only report problems when they encounter them; not everyone visits GitHub. Most people probably just chat with colleagues or complain on messaging apps.
Of course, openly speaking, Akka can also pick code from Pekko, complementing each other. Pekko proactively identified several issues in new Scala versions, driving Scala fixes and paving the way for a smooth upgrade of Akka to Scala later. Currently, Akka seems to be focusing primarily on its agentic system, and I've seen an MCP implementation on Pekko. Therefore, to better serve users, we should carefully review new Akka releases. After all, every implementation has a reason. However, since we are not providing a commercial service, we can potentially move faster in terms of binary compatibility; for example, we removed a lot of code in 2.0.0. My personal suggestion is that we align with Akka 2.7.0 in version 1.3.0, avoiding any disruptive changes. Version 2.0.0 should include all the features of Akka 2.7.0, and then prepare a new version, such as 2.1.0, with the features of Akka 2.8.0. Alternatively, we could postpone Pekko 2.0.0 to integrate Akka 2.8.0 features, which would give us more development time. Only in this way can we better serve our users and expand the community. 何品 kerr <[email protected]> 于2025年11月13日周四 12:27写道： > I think 2479 will not make it because it currently breaks Mima. But > https://github.com/apache/pekko/pull/2486 seems ok. > > I think we should get 1.3.0 out soon, because users may switch to Akka > 2.7.0 because of the new behavior api for Java 21's pattern matching. > > https://github.com/CajunSystems/cajun, a new actor library, advertises > that too. > 何品 > > > PJ Fanning <[email protected]> 于2025年11月12日周三 17:37写道： > >> I think PR 2479 is a workable solution. If there are no strong >> objections to it, we could get it into 1.3.0. >> >> Let's delay the RC1 for 1.3.0 for a week or two to allow a discussion to >> happen. >> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 at 09:46, Matthew de Detrich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > On another note and on the topic of making a javadsl/scaladsl for >> > ActorSystem, in >> > exploring the option of creating a non-source breaking smooth transition >> > from 1.3.0 >> > to 2.0.0 I made a PR at https://github.com/apache/pekko/pull/2479, see >> > https://github.com/apache/pekko/issues/2093#issuecomment-3520511719 >> > >> > I think it would be good to make an "executive" decision on the course >> > forward, if >> > we care about ActorSystem in Pekko 1.3.0 being source compatible with >> Pekko >> > 2.0.0 then we would need this PR to be merged for 1.3.0. >> > >> > On the other hand, if we wan't a cleaner API and don't worry about >> source >> > breakage >> > in 2.0.0, that PR isn't needed at all and it would also give us some >> > breathing room as >> > we only need to target Pekko 2.0.0. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:31 PM Matthew de Detrich < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > > I don't personally believe that we need to port everything from Akka >> > > releases as they become available under the Apache license. I would >> > > prefer to concentrate on bug fixes and test coverage. Enhancements if >> > > people want them but I don't think we should grab them without >> > > evidence they are wanted by Pekko users. >> > > >> > > I actually disagree here, although within reason. For me, if there are >> > > changes >> > > that are isolated and easy to port then we should do that (if someone >> is >> > > willing >> > > to do it), it's better for end users and there is no argument against >> it >> > > aside from >> > > rushing a 1.3.x release. >> > > >> > > I understand that we need more tests and bug fixes but it's not a >> zero sum >> > > game, and >> > > in any case the Akka devs are very diligent in adding tests to any >> > > features that they >> > > implement so porting back changes is not going to change our status >> quo >> > > very much. >> > > >> > > And to close off, I wouldn't rely that much on user feedback when it >> comes >> > > to Pekko >> > > because it's historically not a very good way to gauge what features >> users >> > > want. >> > > Generally speaking people complain when there is a bug/something is >> not >> > > working >> > > (my personal theory for behind this is that its a holdover from how >> Akka >> > > was managed, i.e. >> > > Akka being BDFL and driving the project and our users haven't >> transitioned >> > > to a >> > > community mindset fully). >> > > >> > > Kind regards, >> > > Matthew >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:24 PM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> I don't personally believe that we need to port everything from Akka >> > >> releases as they become available under the Apache license. I would >> > >> prefer to concentrate on bug fixes and test coverage. Enhancements if >> > >> people want them but I don't think we should grab them without >> > >> evidence they are wanted by Pekko users. >> > >> >> > >> Once Pekko 2.0.0 is out, I don't think we should continue to take >> Akka >> > >> changes over to 1.x unless they fix critical bugs - that they should >> > >> only go into 2.x in normal circumstances. >> > >> >> > >> There is a reasonable chance that Akka 2.8.0 changes will become >> > >> Apache licensed before we get to release Pekko 2.0.0. But maybe, it >> > >> might focus our minds to get 2.0.0 complete before then. We could >> then >> > >> just add Akka 2.8.0 stuff in a Pekko 2.x release. >> > >> >> > >> On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 at 20:08, kerr <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > I see, but if we want to support 1.4.0, then we will have much to >> port, >> > >> eg, >> > >> > Akka 2.8.0 needs to be ported to Pekko 1.4.x too . >> > >> > And we don't have the same setup, eg, sortImports, Scala versions, >> Java >> > >> > formatter, and Scala formatter, etc., which causes cherry picking >> a huge >> > >> > burden. >> > >> > While porting recently, I had to do many manual sortings to make >> the >> > >> code >> > >> > work with 1.3.x >> > >> > >> > >> > 何品 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > PJ Fanning <[email protected]> 于2025年11月9日周日 01:43写道： >> > >> > >> > >> > > 1.x releases will support Java 8. >> > >> > > I'm not going to guess what sort of 1.x releases we will need >> but we >> > >> > > will continue to do 1.x releases including some small >> enhancements >> > >> > > until 2.0.0 full release happens. After 2.0.0 is out, I think it >> is >> > >> > > fairly likely that we will only fix bugs in 1.x and this will >> likely >> > >> > > mean only occasional patch releases. >> > >> > > We could easily end up with 1.3.1 or 1.4.0 releases and possibly >> > >> beyond. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 at 14:37, kerr <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Is Pekko 1.3.0 the last release that we plan to support Java 8? >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> >> > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>
