Hi Elek, The first incompatible change after 1.0 is 07543a44c00e680cec24c1f18d9aa625b09f6e5e . For simplicity, I suggest to fork 1.1 branch from there. If there is a need in the future, we may cherry-pick other bug fixes from the master 2.0 branch to the 1.1 branch.
Thanks a lot for taking care of this. Tsz-Wo On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:16 PM runzhiwang <[email protected]> wrote: > Ozone has upgrade ratis to 1.1.0-c5eafb9-SNAPSHOT, and has already address > some incompatible changes including that of RATIS-1181. > Please wait for me, I will submit a PR in ozone to address the other > incompatible changes. > > Thanks, > runzhiwang > > Elek, Marton <[email protected]> 于2021年1月6日周三 下午8:28写道： > > > > > Thanks the suggestions. > > > > Does anybody has a list of the in-compatible changes? > > > > > > If there is no objection, I will: > > > > 1. start the release process for the THIRDPARTY > > 2. Change the version on master to 2.0 and fork a 1.1 branch > > > > We need a list of the incompatible changes. We can either fork 1.1 from > > the master and revert them OR fork from 1.0 and add the changes one bye > on. > > > > (We have 119 commits since 1.0 as far as I see) > > > > Marton > > > > On 12/2/20 3:05 PM, Tsz Wo Sze 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 > > >> > > > > > >
