That's what I was getting at with asking about phrasing like "long supported" or LTS. The expectation is months or years longer than typical. ZooKeeper code lines have typically been supported for really long times. It is a strength of this project, in my opinion. Those of us who have been around for a while, if we hear "LTS" from you, we think years and years... Christopher from Accumulo had a good suggestion. Whatever you decide, document it. Will help with communication. Probably best to avoid use of the term "LTS" unless you plan on keeping that version around for several years.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:59 AM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:19 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > > > More specifically? > > > > Are you asking me? :-) "LTS" literally has a definition in wikipedia: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support > > > > > > Stable 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and EoL 3.5 at the end of the year (1st of Jan, > > 2023)? > > > > Andor > > > > > > > > > On 2022. Feb 1., at 16:41, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > "LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. > JDK > > > LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with > > the > > > stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in > > terms > > > of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Andrew, > > >> > > >> I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, > just > > >> my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper > (4 > > >> years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to > be > > >> honest I’m not participating in it. > > >> > > >> As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the > > >> “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches > > that > > >> improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so > > >> announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily > bad. > > >> > > >> As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I > think > > >> the following could also be considered for the community: > > >> > > >> Now: > > >> > > >> master > > >> ---------- > > >> 3.7 > > >> 3.6 > > >> 3.5 LTS > > >> ---------- > > >> 3.4 EoL > > >> > > >> Can become: > > >> > > >> master > > >> ---------- > > >> 3.8 LTS > > >> 3.7 > > >> 3.5 LTS > > >> ---------- > > >> 3.6 EoL > > >> 3.4 EoL > > >> > > >> In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> Andor > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, > but > > >>> maybe I have misunderstood this response: > > >>> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > ha > > >>>> scritto: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a > > >> Hadoop > > >>>>> JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe > > >> there > > >>>>> have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) > > >>>> release. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > > >>>>> untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a > > >> timetable > > >>>> to > > >>>>> EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should > you > > >>>>> decide to EOL it. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I am sorry, > > >>>> I forgot about such conversation. > > >>>> > > >>>> Can you share some pointers ? > > >>>> > > >>>> No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 > and > > >> that > > >>>> is willing to help. > > >>>> > > >>>> Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to > > >>>> compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect > > to > > >> new > > >>>> servers (and vice versa) > > >>>> > > >>>> I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the > > >> community, > > >>>> so from your response I understand that there is such interest. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for answering > > >>>> > > >>>> Enrico > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Hello, > > >>>>>> We are going to release 3.8.0. > > >>>>>> It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Key points: > > >>>>>> - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > > >>>>>> - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade > is > > >>>>>> awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) > > >>>>>> - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if > > >>>>>> requested to upgrade to 3.6 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thoughts ? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Enrico > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Andrew > > >>> > > >>> Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - > > >>> It's what we’ve earned > > >>> Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? > > >>> Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on > > >>> - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse > > >> > > >> > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - It's what we’ve earned Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse
