I've only seen a few questions about versioning come up on the ZK lists, they were quickly responded to with pointers to the process. iirc we based our versioning scheme on what Hadoop was/is using. Additionally if we don't allow for alpha time it will further slow progress as there will be no opportunity to adjust things like APIs once they are committed and generally available for people to "kick the tires".
I'll leave it up to the rest of the community to state their opinions, but as i have stated imo it would be a mistake to revert this change. Jordan has raised a reasonable concern - I consider this a blocker for 3.5.3-alpha until it is resolved. Patrick On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com > wrote: > > I think people understand what alpha means. > > With respect, the ZooKeeper team has used “alpha” in a novel way that is > sowing considerable confusion. I wrote emails about this a while back. But, > here again, is another case where the non-standard usage of “alpha” will > cause confusion. To reiterate: someone who sees "3.5.2-alpha” will think > that there will eventually be a “3.5.2-beta” and finally a “3.5.2” release > version. But, with ZooKeeper there will never be a “3.5.2” release. In > fact, the “-alpha” label is mis-located. The real version is > “3.5.?-alpha1”, “3.5.?-alpha2”, etc. There’s an important implication here. > If a ZooKeeper user who doesn’t follow the mailing lists, etc. sees > “3.5.2-alpha” and “3.5.3-alpha” they will mentally see these as two > different releases. What ZOOKEEPER-2014 has done is remove an existing API > from what appears to be a released version 3.5.2 (which never really > existed). This change violates semantic versioning. For external users, the > version after “3.5.2” should be “4.x.x” as it has breaking changes. > > > It's not about style, there were a number of concerns addressed in that > > patch. > > The auth issues are very real ones. The issues in ZOOKEEPER-2014 can be > addressed completely without moving the reconfig() methods to a new class. > It may be useful to move APIs around for clarity, etc. but these breaking > changes should be for a version that signals breaking changes - 4.x.x or > something. i.e. moving the reconfig() APIs is orthogonal to the concerns of > ZOOKEEPER-2014 and should be a separate Jira issue. > > > I think people understand what alpha means. There may be some short term > > impact for a few, but a significant benefit over the long term. > > Again with respect - 3.5.0-alpha was made available in Maven Central > August 2014 - over 2 years ago. Regardless of the ZooKeeper team’s intent, > this is NOT an alpha in users’ minds. This is a released library that is in > production in major organizations. The ZooKeeper team should realize this > and adjust their thinking about the “alpha” tag. For Apache Curator, we’re > now put in a position where the reconfig() APIs have disappeared. In order > to maintain our own internal semantic versioning we will have to consider a > third branch of Curator (we currently have a ZooKeeper 3.4.x compatible > version and a ZooKeeper 3.5.x compatible version). It would be awesome if > we didn’t have to do this. > > -Jordan > > > On Dec 7, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > It's not about style, there were a number of concerns addressed in that > > patch. We didn't take the change lightly, we've been discussing it over > > jira and the mailing list over the past two years. > > > > I think people understand what alpha means. There may be some short term > > impact for a few, but a significant benefit over the long term. > > > > Patrick > > > > On Dec 7, 2016 9:24 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I read through the issue and disagree about the decision to move the > APIs > >> out. That was a stylistic choice that breaks client code. I realize that > >> 3.5.x has been advertised as an alpha but you must realize that most of > the > >> world is using it in production. These APIs have now been published. > This > >> will create a real headache for Curator which is why I’ve created > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2642 < > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2642> - I hope we can > >> move these APIs back into ZooKeeper.java. > >> > >> -Jordan > >> > >>> On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> It's discussed in more depth in the JIRA iirc, but basically; > >>> ZooKeeper.java provides client APIs, reconfig is an admiistrative API. > >>> > >>> Patrick > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I understand the need to make the methods require proper auth but > >> there's > >>>> no reason to move it to a different class that I can see. Am I missing > >>>> something? > >>>> > >>>> ==================== > >>>> Jordan Zimmerman > >>>> > >>>>> On Dec 7, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> This problem has been a long standing blocker issue for 3.5 and > >>>> identified > >>>>> early on as something that would need to change. This has been one of > >> the > >>>>> reasons why 3.5 has stayed in alpha - because we allow non-backward > >>>>> compatible changes to new APIs in alpha and we knew we would have to > >> fix > >>>>> this. The description/comments of ZOOKEEPER-2014 does a good job > >>>>> documenting why this had to change. > >>>>> > >>>>> Patrick > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > >>>> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> OK - I found the offending issue: ZOOKEEPER-2014 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What is the benefit/logic of moving the reconfig() variants into a > new > >>>>>> class? I can see if this was done from the start but you have now > >> broken > >>>>>> Curator in a fairly serious non-backward compatible way for a minor > >>>>>> documenting benefit. Does anyone object to me reversing this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Jordan > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > >>>>>> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I was compiling Curator against the ZK master and noticed that the > >>>>>> reconfig APIs are gone/changed. Can anyone point me at the issues > for > >>>> this > >>>>>> and/or the discussion why this breaking change was made? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Jordan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
