Hi, I second Pat’s suggestion about release in beta for a fixed period and after that follow Norbert’s versioning scheme: 3.6.0-beta1, 3.6.0-beta2, … , 3.6.0
Regards, Andor > On 2019. Oct 2., at 2:23, Michael Han <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>>> >>> >>
