Happy New Year! Just wonder if there is any update on the target date/timeframe for the new 4.0.0/3.10 release?
Thanks, Li On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 12:31 AM Andor Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Christopher, would you please open a PR with the proposed changes > for the master branch? > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2025, at 19:50, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sounds good to me. I can help with the maven changes, too. > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 11:54 Andor Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Since our household chores have been finished with recent 3.9 and 3.8 > >> version, I think we can get back to this topic. > >> > >> Looking at the tremendous amount of work that Kezhu is doing on master > >> with client jar separations, I tend to cut 4.0.0 from master once > >> everything is done. If that’d be the case we could make a leap and make > JDK > >> 17 the minimum runtime and compile versions for the master branch. wdyt? > >> > >> Once the change is merged to master, we'll backport it to branch-3.9 as > >> follows: > >> > >> * minimum JDK for building: 17 > >> * minimum JRE for running: 8 (no change) > >> > >> This is completely aligned with Christopher’s suggestion except we won’t > >> touch the branch-3.8 as it’s going to be EoL’d in 6 months after the > >> release of 4.0.0. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Andor > >> > >> p.s. Due to my little Maven experience I won’t be able to make the PRs > >> myself, so I’ll ask sb to volunteer. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 20, 2025, at 20:59, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> It looks like that Confluence page is pretty close to Semver 2.0's > >>> definition (semver.org). > >>> I was confused by the use of the word "major" to refer to 3.10 earlier > in > >>> this thread. By the definition there, it'd be a "minor" release. > >>> > >>> Since the version numbering is based on API changes, and not dependency > >>> requirements, it is permissible to update dependencies substantially, > >>> without breaking any documented goal. However, I still think going to > 17 > >> in > >>> a 3.x minor release is a bit too much for existing 3.x users who are > >> trying > >>> to stay up-to-date on 3.x. I think 11 is less disruptive for a minor > >>> version bump. But, I also think it would be okay to release 4.0 from > the > >>> master branch instead of 3.10, and make bigger, more disruptive > changes. > >> My > >>> main concern is whether users on 3.x will be properly prepared for the > >>> risks of disruptive changes. If the version is called 3.10, they may > >> think > >>> it to be low-risk, but if it is called 4.0, they will recognize it as > >>> riskier and can prepare for it. Users tend to infer a lot about the > risk > >>> level from the name of the version, and a major version number change > >>> communicates bigger risk that users may need to prepare for. > >>> > >>> In any case, I certainly don't feel too strongly about it. Although my > >>> preference would be to have 11 as the runtime minimum for 3.10, I would > >>> prefer 17 rather than staying on 8. My preferences are: > >>> > >>> * minimum JDK for building all active branches (3.9 and later): 17 > >>> * minimum JRE for running 3.9: 8 (no change) > >>> * minimum JRE for running 3.10: 11 > 17 > 8 > >>> * minimum JRE for running a future 4.x: 17 > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 6:38 PM Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > >>>> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>>> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected] > > > >>>>>> 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 < > [email protected]> > >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know when 3.10.0 is planned to be released? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Li > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
