I am leaning towards release master as 3.6.0 as well, not with any suffix. We don't have any pending unstable API for 3.6 (like dynamic reconfiguration to 3.5) that justify the added overheads of using a non standard, ZooKeeper specific versioning scheme for master branch.
See http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Question-about-3-5-0-stability-and-versioning-td7580927.html for some context on why the decision was made and the complains. On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:11 AM Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Enrico these are good ideas, thoughts below: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:09 AM Norbert Kalmar <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > 3.5 had a lot of new features that wasn't really finalized, so API > changed > > until stable 3.5 (3.5.5). But I don't think this is the case with 3.6.0, > we > > have complete and pretty much finalized features as far as I can tell. > > Also, it did confuse me that with the beta and alpha releases on 3.5 > minor > > version jumped as well. So if we want to stick with alpha/beta qualifier, > > let's keep it at 3.6.0-alpha and 3.6.0-beta (not like 3.6.2-beta). > > > > > That is a good point Norbert. We did try to say "alpha/beta is unstable" > (apis/code/etc...). That worked fairly well, but we were in that state for > so long that people started using it in production and then got upset when > we did change the APIs (whatever). As such I would say this is only > partially successful. Perhaps it would have been more successful if we had > limited the beta time down more, however folks kept increasing the scope > (by committing new features to 3.5 rather than trunk) and that ended up > continually pushing out the dates. > > > > I don't know any change that would justify an "alpha" version, so maybe a > > beta would be better? But I'm also just fine releasing just "3.6.0". > Bugfix > > version is zero, everyone pretty much knows what that means :) > > > > Perhaps a limited "beta" to allow folks to bang on it, then a planned move > to "stable"? You could say we'll release it as beta for 3 months then move > to stable if there are no major issues. The problem with just releasing > straight to stable is that many folks won't try it out from source and > would only try a binary. > > Patrick > > > > > > So I lean toward leaving alpha and beta out of the version. > > > > Regards, > > Norbert > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 2:34 PM Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > We are close to a release for 3.6.0, currently master branch is full of > > > important features and important refactors. > > > > > > On the VOTE thread for 3.5.6 it came out that we could release 3.6.0 as > > > "ALPHA", here are my thoughts. > > > > > > I think we have at least these kind of "users": > > > - Companies that run the Server on the most recent "stable" release > > > - Companies that running a ZooKeeper cluster just because another > system > > > depends on it (HBase, Kafka,Solr, Pulsar....) > > > - Library maintainers (Kafka, BookKeeper, HBase), they depend on a > > version > > > of the client or on some feature of the server > > > - Application developers > > > - Big companies that maintain their own forks and/or are using the > > "master" > > > version > > > > > > With my library maintainer hat I feel I cannot depend on some "ALPHA" > > > version of ZooKeeper client and make my users setup an ALPHA version > of > > > the server. > > > It happened on BookKeeper for instance, we started to depend on ZK 3.5 > > but > > > as it was BETA so we needed to revert back to 3.4. > > > I think that some similar story happened in Kafka, now that we have 3.5 > > > with SSL support users are going to migrate. > > > > > > If there is no blocker issue on 3.6.0 I feel we should dare to release > it > > > as "stable", we can always suggest users and companies to try out > current > > > master and give feedback. > > > > > > I am new to this story of tagging as "ALPHA"/"BETA" on ZooKeeper, but > as > > an > > > user and library maintainer I suffered a lot that '-ALPHA' and '-BETA' > > > suffixes. > > > I know that ZooKeeper is the core of most of the other systems and we > > > should not suggest to use something that it is "experimental", but as > far > > > as I know we are taking great care about being backward compatible and > > > about the quality of our code base. > > > > > > Other opinions ? > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > >
