I think most people interpret Java/maven version numbers (x.y.z) as: x = major y = minor z = patch/bugfix
I think it's confusing when you say 3.10 is a "major" version. What would you call 4.0.0? A "supremely major" release, perhaps? It's fine to treat a minor release as a substantial change, but for communication, I think it's still a minor release unless you bump the "major" portion of the version. I like the changes that you're planning, but I think they might be significant enough to call it a "major" version and bump to 4.0.0. There doesn't need to be a 3.10... you can just rename it anytime before it is released. On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 2:46 PM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > We agreed on that we cut 3.10.0 from the master branch as new major > release of ZooKeeper. There’s no plan for 4.0.0 right now. > > Bumping minimum JDK version to JDK 17 is for 3.10.0 only. > > I suggested JDK 17, because I’d like to do a major refactoring to upgrade > Jetty to the latest (12.1) version and it requires Java 17 in the runtime. > I know it sounds like a big jump, but consider that Java 11 is already > outdated. (EoS was Sept 2023) > > Every version of Jetty including and earlier than 11 is already EoL, so we > don’t benefit too much from a JDK 11 upgrade. > > ZooKeeper 3.9.x will be supported and stay the stable version of Apache > ZooKeeper for a long long time, so people running on Java 8 and 11 are > still covered. > > Best, > Andor > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2025, at 13:18, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I have reservations about bumping the minimum runtime Java version to > > 17, because I have applications that use ZooKeeper client code that > > run Java 11. I think a more modest change would be to bump the > > required build version to 17, but keep the target version at 11. If > > this is being considered for 4.0.0 only, then I'm okay with just going > > to 17 for the runtime version as well. I think my existing > > applications that run on java 11 can continue to use 3.x. > > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 8:44 AM Kezhu Wang <kez...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> +1 to upgrade to JDK 17 > >> > >> Ideally, I would suggest using different jdk versions for client and > >> server to not push client usage just like kafka[1] and pulsar[2]. But > >> given the fact that we don't have a slim client jar[3], so +1 to this. > >> > >> +1 to call next release from master as 3.10.0 > >> > >> I think most of the code changes in master since 3.9 were expected to > >> be shipped in 3.10.0. One can confirm this in zookeeperAdmin.md. I > >> don't think it is worth bumping to 4.x near its release. > >> > >> I expect 4.x to be a planned version to do some ambitious tasks and > >> probably in a not backward compatible way such as ZOOKEEPER-233[3], > >> ZOOKEEPER-835[4] or ZOOKEEPER-22[5]. Also, there is 4.0.0 in jira[6]. > >> > >> I do think bumping to JDK 17 could also be considered as a breaking > >> change, but that could be trivial for dependants to solve and not > >> touching zookeeper related codes. I would prefer new features(probably > >> along with breaking changes) from our side in major releases. > >> > >> [1]: https://kafka.apache.org/40/documentation/compatibility.html > >> [2]: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar?tab=readme-ov-file#pulsar-runtime-java-version-recommendation > >> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-233 > >> [4]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-835 > >> [5]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-22 > >> [6]: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ZOOKEEPER/versions/12313382 > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 9:34 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> What tech debt do you mean exactly? > >>> > >>> I'm happy either way, don't have strong opinion, we can stay at 3.x.x > >>> versioning. > >>> > >>> Andor > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8/9/25 06:40, tison wrote: > >>>> Or instead, from a different perspective, if we call a 4.0, can we > pay back > >>>> some tech debt just for compatibility? > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> tison. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> tison <wander4...@gmail.com>于2025年8月9日 周六18:30写道： > >>>> > >>>>> +1 for JDK17 > >>>>> > >>>>> -0 for 4.0. Bumping JDK version doesn't break APIs and contracts. So > I'd > >>>>> prefer 3.10. 4.0 may give a signal of a big break change but it > isn't. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> tison. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Li Wang <li4w...@gmail.com>于2025年8月9日 周六08:51写道： > >>>>> > >>>>>> That's awesome. Thanks for driving this, Andor! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> After releasing 3.9.4 I’d like to announce EoL of the 3.8.x release > line > >>>>>>> and create a new minor/major off the master branch. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does this mean the next major version (i.e. 4.0.0/3.10.0) will be > released > >>>>>> soon, as we need to have a new current release before announcing > EoL of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> 3.8.x release? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Given the 3.9.4 release is in progress, any rough idea on when the > next > >>>>>> major version will be? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> what if we rather call the new release 4.0.0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 for calling it 4.0.0. Looks like we have been on 3.x for about > 17 years > >>>>>> already. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> what if we make two steps forward instead of one and let Java 17 to > be the > >>>>>>> minimum requirement > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 for Java 17 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Li > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 2:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks for driving this Andor! I think what you are saying makes > sense, > >>>>>>> will be interested to see what other ppl think. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Patrick > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 2:27 PM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Li, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The topic comes up every so often on the Dev list, so let’s bring > it > >>>>>> up > >>>>>>>> again. After releasing 3.9.4 I’d like to announce EoL of the 3.8.x > >>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>> line and create a new minor/major off the master branch. I’d like > to > >>>>>> drop > >>>>>>>> Java 8 support in that release and make Java 11 as minimum > requirement > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> ZooKeeper. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> * In which case, what if we rather call the new release 4.0.0? > >>>>>>>> * Additionally what if we make two steps forward instead of one > and > >>>>>> let > >>>>>>>> Java 17 to be the minimum requirement? With that, we could upgrade > >>>>>> Jetty > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> the latest actively supported version. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andor > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On May 7, 2025, at 13:16, Li Wang <li4w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Does anyone know when 3.10.0 is planned to be released? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Li > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >
