> I would argue we've done a pretty good job at maintaining backwards
> compat in the CRDs, which has added a lot of extra heavy lifting by
> Houston at times.

Agreed, for sure. To be super clear - I'm not trying to imply blame or
laxness or anything like that. I think it's been good judgement
throughout, and I appreciate all of Houston's (and everyone's) work
there.  I just wanted to get a conversation going around v1 to see
where everyone thinks we are stability-wise.  Definitely didn't intend
any slight or offense there!

On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:50 AM Houston Putman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing this up Jason, I think it's definitely something we need 
> to plan for. I've also had people ask me personally if it's ok to use in 
> Production, even though it's in "beta" state, so I think the concern is valid.
>
> Mike we do have a Version compatibility matrix for both Solr and Kubernetes: 
> https://apache.github.io/solr-operator/docs/upgrade-notes.html#version-compatibility-matrixes
>
> I think we are getting close to stability for the v1 API version, and a 1.0 
> release. However I think it might be worth it to require Solr 9x for that 
> version, and thus wait until Solr 9.2 is out as Tim mentioned.
> There are a lot of improvements we can make when that happens. I've been 
> keeping a running list here: 
> https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/blob/main/dev-docs/changes-for-minimum-solr-version.md
>
> When we do the v1 API release we will also need to add multi-version support, 
> so that users can use the v1beta1 and v1 CRDs interchangeably and have time 
> to migrate.
> This won't be a small task, so we definitely have some time before we can 
> release v1.0.
>
> I'm glad you mentioned documentation as well Tim, I definitely don't think 
> 1.0 should be released until the Solr Operator documentation is included in 
> the ref guide and has a bit of an overhaul.
> This shouldn't take as long as the multi-version support, but it's not a 
> trivial task.
>
> Overall I would not be surprised if v0.6 and v0.7 are released before we get 
> a 1.0, and we might want to keep development of v0.x alive if we only support 
> Solr 9.0 in v1.0.
> But it's good to get the ball rolling and have a list of goals we want to 
> accomplish in v1.0
>
> - Houston
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:40 AM Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 9:43 AM Timothy Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, we should draw a hard line in the sand on which versions of Solr
>>> the 1.0 operator supports! It'll likely be one of the later 8.x
>>> versions.
>>
>>
>> In addition to this, I think we will need to be aware of what versions of 
>> Kubernetes each version of the operator will support. I know that k8s 1.22 
>> removed many deprecated APIs, but I don't recall if that required changes to 
>> our operator. Would similarly scoped changes in the future require us to go 
>> from 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to