FYI here's what documented for the project: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=24193438#Roadmap-ReleaseNumbering I personally think about it along these lines: "Upgrading between major releases will generally require changes to user code". The "annually" - I guess that was aspirational. :-)
Regards, Patrick On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 5:24 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 outdated.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 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > > > >
