Yes, I did offer. I'm sorry I haven't had time to work on it yet. I think I may have time next week to help, if somebody else doesn't do it first.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 7:30 PM Andor Molnár <[email protected]> wrote: > > Personally I’m waiting for somebody who has experience with Maven to put > together a patch against the master branch with the proposed JDK/JRE changes. > > As far as I remember Christopher has offered help. > > Regards, > > Andor > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2026, at 15:59, Li Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> >
