>We may consider releasing 1.1. In this case, we should cherry-pick bug >fixes and avoid the incompatible changes.
+1 to release 1.1 for ratis, to include important fixes without breaking compatibility. On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:05 AM Tsz Wo Sze <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Marton and Attila for bringing this up. > > For 2.0, we should wait for RATIS-1181. It defines APIs for StateMachine > implementations so that they do not have to use the private APIs. > > We may consider releasing 1.1. In this case, we should cherry-pick bug > fixes and avoid the incompatible changes. > > Tsz-Wo > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 8:22 PM Attila Doroszlai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Is there any important fix which must be included? > > > > Recently there was some discussion here about incompatible changes to > > Ratis since 1.0. Nicholas mentioned that the next release could be > > 2.0 instead of 1.1 and declare it's not fully backward compatible. Is > > the async API stable now so that we can avoid the same situation soon > > after the next release? (There are some outstanding PRs related to > > it.) Or would it make sense to cut a release branch for 1.1 without > > changes related to RATIS-979 and apply other fixes? > > > > thanks, > > Attila > > >
