I dont mind either way ;-)
> Am 15.07.2026 um 15:00 schrieb Rui Abreu <[email protected]>: > > Gianluca, @Richard Zowalla can we get some votes on getting 3.0.0 RC1 > and 2.8.9 RC1 out? > >> On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 at 11:55, Julien Nioche >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I propose we release 2.8.9 with 3.0.0 and warn the community that 2.x >> is EOL and that it's the last release. 2.8.9 contains a few >> dependabots upgrades compared to 2.8.8, so it's worth doing. >> >> + 1 from me. >> >> Julien >> >>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 at 21:26, Rui Abreu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Note: we recently released 2.8.8 so the title of this email chain is >>> wrong. It should read 2..8.9. >>> >>> While keeping 2.x alive for some time is appealing, the jump from >>> Storm 2 to 3 is much less complex than the one made from Storm 2 to 3. >>> Even with master (Storm 3) shipped with Java 25 >>> We should focus our attention and resources on 3.x, which has quite a >>> few interesting new additions. >>> I propose we release 2.8.9 with 3.0.0 and warn the community that 2.x >>> is EOL and that it's the last release. 2.8.9 contains a few >>> dependabots upgrades compared to 2.8.8, so it's worth doing. >>> >>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 at 21:48, Gianluca Graziadei >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree that setting an EOL for 2.X is a natural next step for the >>>> project, and options b1 or b2 seem like the best approach. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Gianluca >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2026, 10:04 Rui Abreu, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree @Richard Zowalla .The sooner the better, to let the community >>>>> manage expectations >>>>> >>>>> Do you want me to set up the vote? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 at 07:48, Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. We should open a discussion / vote with different options for >>>>> EOLing 2.x (since resources to maintain 2.x branches and getting the >>> votes >>>>> needed for a release are quite sparse). >>>>>> >>>>>> Think primary questions for that would be: >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) Do we have consensus that such an EOL announcement is long >>> overdue >>>>> and should be put out rather soonish? >>>>>> (b) Time of the announcement: Options that I see: >>>>>> - b1: Directly with the projected release of the 3.0.0 marking it as >>> the >>>>> last release ever to be expected for OpenNLP 2.x >>>>>> - b2: Shortly after - with a grace period - for instance End of Year >>>>> 2026, or similar short ranged targets. >>>>>> - b3: Mid of year 2027 >>>>>> >>>>>> Gruß >>>>>> Richard >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2026/07/07 22:44:52 Rui Abreu wrote: >>>>>>> Created this PR https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/8893 to set >>> the >>>>>>> baseline as Java 25. >>>>>>> Additionally, we should vote on setting Apache Storm 2.x as EOL >>> (it is >>>>>>> only receiving dependabot updates at this point) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 at 14:34, Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 on thinking about Java 25 for 3.0.0 rather than just bumping >>> to >>>>> 21. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The reason it is worth it now is the pinning fix: JEP 491 >>>>> ("Synchronize Virtual Threads without Pinning"), delivered in Java 24 >>> and >>>>> carried into the 25 LTS. Before that, in 21 to 23, a virtual thread >>> that >>>>> blocked on I/O inside a synchronized block stayed pinned to its carrier >>>>> thread, and under load that could exhaust the carrier pool and stall >>>>> progress. That is a real concern for us, because we have a fair amount >>> of >>>>> synchronized code sitting in exactly the I/O bound paths where you >>> would >>>>> want to use VTs. On 24/25 the VT unmounts and frees the carrier while >>> it >>>>> waits, so we would not have to go and rewrite every synchronized block >>> as >>>>> ReentrantLock first, which is the migration a lot of libraries had to >>> do >>>>> (MySQL Connector/J, Resilience4j and others). Native/JNI is the one >>>>> remaining pinning case, but that is narrow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where this could actually matter in Storm: the places that spend >>>>> their time waiting rather than computing are the obvious candidates. >>>>> Netty/transport worker connections, external lookups in bolts (DB, >>> HTTP, >>>>> cache), and the various ack/metrics/heartbeat paths that talk to >>>>> ZooKeeper/Nimbus. These are classic thread-per-connection or >>> bounded-pool >>>>> setups today, and a thread-per-task VT model could simplify them and >>> scale >>>>> better when a topology fans out to a lot of blocking calls >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> What we would want to be careful about: the hot path is the >>>>> executor's disruptor queues and the spout/bolt processing loop, and a >>> lot >>>>> of that is CPU bound message passing, not blocking I/O, so VTs do not >>> help >>>>> there and should not be forced in. This is about targeted use in the >>> I/O >>>>> bound corners, not running everything on virtual threads. We would also >>>>> want to watch ThreadLocal usage, since Scoped Values (finalised in 25) >>> are >>>>> the intended replacement and we lean on thread locals in a few spots. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So my argument is: if we are doing a new major anyway, baselining >>>>> 3.0.0 on Java 25 rather than 21 costs us little extra now and saves a >>>>> second baseline bump later. It also keeps the door open to actually >>> explore >>>>> VTs in the blocking paths. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Realistically it will be a good while before we are in a >>> position to >>>>> do a Storm 4, so 3.x is where any of this experimentation has to live >>>>> regardless, and I would rather not start that line on a baseline we >>> already >>>>> know we will want to move off. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not saying we commit to adopting VTs in 3.0.0 itself. Just >>> that >>>>> 25 as the baseline is the enabler, and we can prototype on a branch >>> from >>>>> there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gruß >>>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2026/06/24 13:24:26 Rui Abreu wrote: >>>>>>>>> Julien, master is being compiled with JDK 21, but our test >>>>> pipelines >>>>>>>>> run both 21 and 25. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 at 10:49, Julien Nioche >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Rui, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are we moving to Java 25 in 3.x? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Julien >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 at 14:57, Rui Abreu <[email protected] >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey folks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We have several good contributions in master and a few more >>>>> undergoing PRs. >>>>>>>>>>> I'm keen on releasing 3.0.0 to the community soon. I don't >>>>> mind at all >>>>>>>>>>> doing the release. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 May 2026 at 19:02, Rui Abreu < >>> [email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Totally agree. I would say we should keep merging >>> dependabot >>>>> PRs into >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x for some months, but only do a release if we have >>>>> reports of a >>>>>>>>>>>> bug, like the one we patched in 2.8.8. >>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, 3.0.0 will be the way to go to better utilise >>> our >>>>> manpower >>>>>>>>>>> resources. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 May 2026 at 18:38, Richard Zowalla < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Given our current man power it might be beneficial, if >>> we >>>>> decide on a >>>>>>>>>>>>> EOL strategy for the 2.x release line before going into >>>>> 3.x (dropped >>>>>>>>>>>>> clojure, Java 21 baseline), so we have a clear way on >>> how >>>>> long we want >>>>>>>>>>>>> to support the 2.x branch with releases. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Given our slow pace in getting the required votes, we >>>>> might have an >>>>>>>>>>>>> issue with maintaing to release lines in parallel over >>> a >>>>> longer period >>>>>>>>>>>>> of time. Think we can do that for a few months but not >>>>> endlessly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Might be worth a discussion thread on the dev@ list. >>> wdyt? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, dem 20.05.2026 um 16:44 +0100 schrieb Rui >>>>> Abreu: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello @Richard Zowalla >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can consider releasing 3.0.0 over the next week >>> or so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2026 at 23:09, Rui Abreu < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PRs @Richard Zowalla , much >>> appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have merged them and dealt with the subsequent >>>>> dependabot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avalanche. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies if you received a whole bunch of Jenkins >>>>> errors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was using AI + GH client to deal with the >>> dependabot >>>>> PRs in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it was being quite helpful, right up until the >>>>> point and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to merge a few PRs whose tests were still >>>>> ongoing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic Merges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * #8632 (Jersey 4.0.2 upgrade on 2.x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * #8615 (Checkstyle 13.4.2 on master) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both have been reverted and both master and 2.x >>> are ok. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll create a RC for 2.8.8 during the week. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2026 at 17:01, Rui Abreu < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, we can hold off on 3.0.0 for now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll focus on making sure 2.8.8 has the necessary >>>>> changeset and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can get the RC going. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 10, 2026, 16:58 Richard Zowalla < >>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8.8 is fine for me. Guess we need to >>> confirmed >>>>> dependabot for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x branches too (+ license update action) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0.0 would need the Java 21 bump before (as >>>>> discussed in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related discussion - dont know if there are >>> other >>>>> things like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jitter RFC stuff for it) - perhaps there is >>>>> something else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruß >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 10.05.2026 um 17:13 schrieb Rui Abreu < >>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just trying to understand if you are keen on >>>>> performing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release for both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions shortly >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> *Julien Nioche * >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> digitalpebble.com <http://www.digitalpebble.com/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Julien Nioche * >> >> >> digitalpebble.com <http://www.digitalpebble.com/>
