Thanks for the clarification, I like the plan! > having 2 active versions (stable and current) and when a new minor version is announced, the least recent will get another 6 months of support
What does this mean exactly? Just to be on the same page, this is what you propose if we release 3.8.0 until let's say end of February 2022? - 3.5 EoL 1st of June 2022 - 3.6 EoL 1st of Sept 2022 (~6 months after 3.8.0 release) - 3.7 will become "stable" - 3.8 will become "current" Did anyone in the community test the latest 3.7 (which is still 3.7.0) with large clusters in production? Are we confident saying 3.7 is stable? (on the other hand, if we don't do the announcement, most likely people won't start to migrate to 3.7) Mate On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:33 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andor, > > Il Mer 16 Feb 2022, 12:47 Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > Okay, I agree that keeping 2 active versions rather than tying ourselves > > to some fixed deadlines makes more sense for ZooKeeper. Let’s go with > this > > approach then if there’s no other objections: > > > > 1) Add this information to the Releases web page: I’ll describe that > > ZooKeeper is having 2 active versions (stable and current) and when a new > > minor version is announced, the least recent will get another 6 months of > > support (security and bugfixes), but after that it will become EoL. That > > means no further releases are expected from the community and users > should > > follow the supported upgrade path. I’ll send this out for review soon. > > > > +1 > > > > 2) Announce 3.5 EoL 1st of June 2022. (sorry Enrico, the end of the long > > discussion is essentially what you originally proposed) > > > > +1 > Thanks > > > Enrico > > > > > Please let me know if you have concerns with this path. > > > > Andor > > > > > > > > > On 2022. Feb 14., at 17:07, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > "Define what EOL means" - whatever we do let's make sure it gets onto > the > > > "releases" page so that folks have official information they can > > reference > > > from the project. > > > > > > I like having a max of 2 versions. Stable and current. I agree that due > > to > > > our lack of communication/policy so far we should ensure that people > have > > > opportunity to move/support on the release versions (3.x minors) we > > current > > > support. > > > > > > I like the idea of tying old releases to new ones. I don't think tying > > > ourselves to a specific, long term is good though. It definitely > reduces > > > flexibility. Same with saying that new minors are going to be released > > > every Y time. Can't we just say that a stable release will be supported > > for > > > a minimum of 6 months (other timeframe?) after moving the stable > > indicator > > > from 3.x to 3.x+1. We then have the flexibility to keep it around > longer > > if > > > there is a reason why folks want to stick for a longer time (eg major > > > changes in the more recent versions).... > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:08 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> Regarding the suggestion: "Maybe we can also communicate that we’re > > going > > >> to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years." If you > > >> release new versions less frequently than that, the number of > > maintenance > > >> versions will go to 0 (though, in practice, you wouldn't EOL your > > current > > >> release). If you release more frequently, you'll be stuck maintaining > an > > >> increasing number of versions. > > >> > > >> To keep the maintenance burden relatively consistent, I suggest tying > > your > > >> EOL schedule to your release schedule, so when you release a new > > version, > > >> you drop the oldest one. If you release every 2 years, then it works > out > > >> the same. But if you release more or less often, your maintenance > burden > > >> stays consistent. > > >> > > >> I would start by deciding the minimum number of concurrent versions > you > > >> want to maintain. I suggest no more than 2, but ZK currently has 3, > and > > is > > >> about to be 4 soon. If you're not marking specific versions as > long-term > > >> stable, then the default would be to assume you're maintaining the > most > > >> recent versions. > > >> > > >> Then, consider churn. If you release frequently, you may want to set a > > >> minimum age for maintenance, so users aren't forced to upgrade too > > often. > > >> So, if you start with 2 concurrent versions and you have a few > versions > > >> released rapidly, you may temporarily need to support up to 3 or 4 > > releases > > >> until the oldest ones reach the minimum age, like 2 years for example, > > and > > >> are able to be EOL'd. > > >> > > >> Then, consider upgrade overlap. When you release, you could EOL the > > oldest > > >> version right away. But, it might be nicer to wait a few months, or > > maybe > > >> up to a year, before the oldest one is EOL'd. > > >> > > >> I previously mentioned Accumulo's "LTM" strategy. These are the core > > >> considerations we had in mind. So, for example, we support a minimum > of > > 1 > > >> LTM version, with a 1 year overlap. We don't release frequently enough > > for > > >> the minimum age to be of concern. However, we did want to allow for > > >> intermediate feature preview releases that are immediately EOL as soon > > as a > > >> newer version is available. So, at any given time, we are maintaining > > >> between 1 and 2 LTM releases, and no more than 1 non-LTM release. We > > also > > >> use this to provide users with information about supported upgrade > > paths so > > >> users can upgrade from LTM to LTM, skipping over non-LTM releases, or > > they > > >> can stay on the latest (whether or not it is LTM). > > >> > > >> For ZooKeeper, I would suggest: > > >> * maintain at least 2 versions (currently 3.6 and 3.7) > > >> * maintain for at least 3 years before EOL > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:10 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thanks for the pointers. It was good to help refreshing my memory. > > >>> > > >>> We definitely missed the communication when stable and current links > > were > > >>> flipped from one version to another. Things will get more interesting > > >> when > > >>> Enrico finally releases 3.8.0. We’ll end up having 3 different > “stable" > > >>> branches and 3.8 will become the “current”. > > >>> > > >>> What can we do with this? > > >>> > > >>> Announcing 3.5 EoL > > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >>> > > >>> This should have been done before flipping the stable pointer, but > > >> anyway, > > >>> here’re the points that we considered when doing the same for 3.4: > > >>> - Discussion happened in March/April 2020, EoL was announced for 1st > of > > >>> June, 2020 (3 months ahead). > > >>> > > >>> - Define what EOL means - This is already discussed, text can be > > >>> copy-pasted from 3.4 EoL message, > > >>> > > >>> - Provide guidelines for upgrading paths, > > >>> > > >>> - State interoperability guarantees > > >>> - Previous version of ZooKeeper client is able to connect to server > > as > > >>> long > > >>> as there’s no new feature enforced on server side, > > >>> - Previous version of ZooKeeper server is able to accept > connections > > >>> from > > >>> clients as long as they don’t want to use new features. > > >>> > > >>> - Curator already supports later versions - Is it true for 3.6, 3.7? > > >>> > > >>> It’s February now, so if we nail down the above points, I don’t see > any > > >>> objections against announcing 3.5 EoL for 1st of June, 2022 (2 years > > >> after > > >>> 3.4 EoL, providing 4 months to upgrade). Maybe we can also > communicate > > >> that > > >>> we’re going to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 > > years. > > >>> > > >>> Andor > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On 2022. Feb 9., at 20:28, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:07 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Pat, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yeah, I asked for a more specific suggestion from you. If we avoid > > >> using > > >>>>> the LTS in ZooKeeper releases and stay with the stable/latest > labels, > > >>> how > > >>>>> would you label the current maintained versions? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Ah, ok. No worries Andor, I misunderstood. My 0.02: > > >>>> > > >>>> We have "stable" and "current" already identified. > > >>>> https://dlcdn.apache.org/zookeeper/ > > >>>> Stable was last updated in April of 2021. My recommendation is that > we > > >>>> should change the process to notify EOL prior to updating e.g. > > "stable" > > >>>> reference. Stable is our indication w/o using the LTS label. As long > > as > > >>> we > > >>>> have a public policy & associated announcements, I think that's > fine. > > >>>> > > >>>> I also bring your attention to this conversation thread from March > > 2020 > > >>> for > > >>>> the previous EOL'd (3.4) release line: > > >>>> https://markmail.org/message/b2pqcztlb2ixoyjp > > >>>> Some good ideas in there from many folks, I think we settled on a > > >>> timeframe > > >>>> we felt comfortable with, at least at the time. Unfortunately we did > > >> not > > >>>> follow through with a plan for future releases. Perhaps we can do > that > > >>> now. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> > > >>>> Patrick > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Enrico is about to release 3.8.0 soon, so we’ll end up having four > > >>>>> versions in maintenance. What should we do with it to reduce the > > >>>>> maintenance cost? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Andor > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On 2022. Feb 4., at 17:58, 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 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
