So if I understand this, "3.6.0-beta" (let's cut the 1 here as maybe no need for a second beta?) and after a fixed time (say about 3 month) "3.6.0-beta2" OR "3.6.0" if it seems fit (vote on it again). This sounds good to me, +1 (non-binding).
Regards, Norbert On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:54 AM Andor Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
