I concur that something labeled 4.0 should be very end user visible. Part of the value of a major version release is that it can be promoted as a project milestone in its maturity and it takes a lot of wind out of the sails to say "you can't see any of it but trust us, it's cool."
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:00 AM Galen Charlton via Evergreen-dev < evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Unless somebody really wants to advocate for calling the next release 4.0 > - and there's been no sign thus far - let's consider the matter decided: > we'll call the next release 3.16. > > I note that Launchpad will allow simply renaming the 4.0 series to 3.16 > and the 4.0-beta milestone to 3.16-beta, so I suspect that little, if no > actual retargeting of bugs will be necessary > > I will make those changes around 12 p.m. ET today. > > As a final comment, I suggest that since we are leaning towards treating > 4.0 as a big-splash release, that the splash be something that is directly > visible to end users. (In other words, I don't think that OpenSRF-related > changes alone would count, though that is only a weakly-held opinion). > > Regards, > > Galen > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 10:24 AM Jason Stephenson via Evergreen-dev < > evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: > >> Hi, all. >> >> I agree with Mike, but with fewer reasons and less explanation. :) >> >> I think we ought to call the next release 3.16, and retartget any 4.0 bug >> that have code committed. I am willing to do the latter job. >> >> Jason >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 12:45 PM Mike Rylander via Evergreen-dev < >> evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: >> >>> FWIW, I'm -1 on calling the next release 4.0 as of today, because the >>> biggest planned change is probably the breaking-est -- the merge of >>> OpenSRF and the xmpp-to-redis change -- and it's just not ready yet. >>> >>> I'll say up front that if we /don't/ merge OpenSRF into EG before the >>> next release (and IMO we should not, based on the state of things >>> today), and therefore force Redis, but we still want to call it 4.0 >>> for other big reasons, I would definitely soften my -1 to -0.5 or >>> less. >>> >>> If you don't care much about the details of the Redis stuff, that -^ >>> is my top line thought on the "should we call it 4.0" question, and >>> you can ignore the rest of my rant! ;) >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> I've been working on the opensrf-on-redis infrastructure for the last >>> month or so with the goal of bringing back the HA and LB functionality >>> that we got for free with XMPP. >>> >>> TL;DR: I'm close, but because of inherent foundational differences in >>> the design and purpose of XMPP vs Redis, our code will simply have to >>> be more complicated going forward. >>> >>> IMO, the major issues in (and the state of my changes compared to) >>> origin/main of the opensrf repo, re redis are: >>> >>> * It's extremely complicated and labor intensive (and maybe >>> impossible, but I only tried to make it work for a couple days) to >>> configure multiple, separate but interacting OpenSRF domains across >>> different Redis servers. At the other end of the spectrum, it's also >>> impossible to configure multi-tenant redis servers. >>> -- This is mainly a /configuration capabilities/ issue, not >>> primarily a code issue, because Bill did add OpenSRF usernames and >>> domains (xmpp domains, before; hosts that run redis, now) to the redis >>> keys used by EG. The structure of the keys is not future-proof and >>> doesn't follow redis key space pattern recommendations (at least WRT >>> planning for Redis-level clustering, HA, and LB), but since it exists >>> today we should be able to change the key structure later at a >>> breaking upgrade event (or, whenever we want, if OpenSRF is merged >>> into EG). However, having the "bus" account configuration duplicated >>> externally, and configured using a single static file, is not tenable. >>> ++ I've addressed this by adjusting the redis config requirements >>> a little, and providing three new configuration modes, targeting use >>> cases of different complexity/need: >>> 1) Instead of leaving the redis server open and unprotected by >>> default and trying to find the password in the "bus accounts" file, >>> the Redis "requirepass" setting is used to supply the password for the >>> "default" (admin/root/whatever) user. >>> 2) osrf_control can receive that password from >>> a) the REDISCLI_AUTH env variable -- generally securable from >>> outside. >>> b) a dedicated file's content -- at least the file can be >>> locked down to a specific unix user. >>> c) a command line option -- meh, handy for manual use, but >>> shows up in `ps`. >>> d) extracted from the "bus accounts file" from before, for >>> back-compat. >>> 3) Made configuring Redis users/ACLs more flexible: >>> a) the existing "bus accounts file" mechanism continues to >>> exist, but because the same file is applied to each domain it's not >>> safe for an HA/LB env because it it's not domain- or user-aware. >>> b) a TT2 template can be supplied; it is processed for each >>> domain separately, so complicated setups can be encoded in the >>> template -- this is intended to provide an HA/LB-safe version of (a). >>> c) osrf_control can dynamically create the necessary ACLs for >>> the router, service, client, and gateway users and keys specific to >>> each domain -- this is the mechanism that has the broadest set of use >>> cases, I think. >>> d) OpenSRF can be told that Redis' built in ACL infrastructure >>> (the "aclfile" Redis config file setting, and friends) will just >>> handle it, and a bus reset request just issues an "ACL LOAD" command >>> to tell redis to refresh ACLs in its native way -- this mechanism >>> provides the most logical separation, and I think will be useful in >>> highly controlled/automated environments that want to make use of the >>> Redis-developer-intended tools for ACL config. >>> >>> * LB (cross-registration of OpenSRF domains) does not work >>> -- The register and unregister commands add additional instances >>> to an internal list of endpoints for each service, but the router >>> always uses the first entry in the list. The effect is that all >>> traffic gets shoveled to the first-registered instance (not >>> necessarily the local one, mind) until that instance actively >>> deregisters, then it moves to the next one that registered. >>> ++ I've added list rotation. That works and is an obvious fix, of >>> course, but it points out that the code is definitely not fully baked >>> or feature-tested, and it's lacking existing fault tolerance at an >>> infrastructure level. >>> >>> * HA does not work, and LB (when fixed as above) is not safe >>> -- Even after addressing the LB part of the cross-registration >>> functionality, there is no way to detect that a service instance >>> previously registered is no longer available and should be removed >>> from the delivery list. Because we're using redis LISTs to stand in >>> for (effectively) stateful TCP sockets and receive buffers, we end up >>> just tossing requests into the void and hoping that someone comes >>> along to service them. Put another way, if a listener dies, we have >>> no way of detecting that at the OpenSRF level and accounting for the >>> failure. This makes LB /more/ dangerous: think something akin to >>> split-brain DNS problems. Because we can't trust either our internal >>> state or the message delivery information from redis. This is also >>> something that we got 100% for free in XMPP, because message delivery >>> to an actual endpoint was verified and we got an error when that >>> failed, so we could resend to another service instance. Now the >>> message just falls into the void on a LIST key that nobody is looking >>> at. >>> ++ I'm working on moving from LISTs to STREAMs for router and >>> service keys. Other than the slight difference in surface-level >>> commands, it's no harder to use streams than lists. What this will >>> allow us to do is recheck the state of previously sent messages, and >>> if 1) they're "stale" and 2) no service instance has claimed them for >>> processing, we can retract the message from the stream, deregister the >>> service instance behind the redis key on which the message went stale, >>> and send it to another service instance. I have the baseline change >>> from LISTs to STREAMs working now, modulo some debug-logging cleanup >>> and chasing down a couple possible leaks and corner cases, but the >>> redis docs are fighting me at every step. (Just ask separately if you >>> want to hear more about that.) I also have a proof of concept version >>> of the message retraction and resend code, but I really want to >>> rewrite that using what I've learned (*sad face*) in the last few >>> weeks about redis. >>> >>> * Infrastructure-level clustering isn't possible >>> -- Whether ejabberd or Redis, infrastructure clustering (transparent >>> HA at the infrastructure level) isn't "easy", and the hard parts have >>> to live somewhere... In the XMPP world, that was mostly ejabberd's >>> problem and it handled it well. Redis has the concept of clustering, >>> but (so far) we've chosen to not only ignore that, but to construct >>> things in such a way that the redis cluster stuff /cannot be used >>> effectively/. I have no proof-of-concept code to address this, yet. >>> We may never have the option to configure things to be as >>> transparently robust in the redis world as we do today with ejabberd. >>> That may not matter to most people most of the time, but it's a point >>> I feel compelled to raise because it's definitely a loss to admins of >>> large, complex, heavily automated installations (even if they're not >>> aware of that loss). >>> >>> I'll be pushing up a branch covering the first two points this week or >>> next, and hopefully be able to follow up with the HA fixes ASAP. >>> >>> Thanks for following my rant this far... :) >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Rylander >>> Research and Development Manager >>> Equinox Open Library Initiative >>> 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) >>> work: mi...@equinoxoli.org >>> personal: mrylan...@gmail.com >>> https://equinoxOLI.org >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 7:22 PM Jeff Davis via Evergreen-dev >>> <evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > We've been talking about calling our next major release Evergreen 4.0, >>> rather than 3.16. >>> > >>> > Is there a list of features that we want to include in a 4.0 release? >>> Should we hold off on bumping the version number to 4.0 until those >>> features are ready? >>> > >>> > Some candidates for "features that warrant going to 4.0": >>> > - Making Angular circ the standard circ UI, rather than experimental. >>> My understanding is that we don't expect that to happen in the next release. >>> > - Merging OpenSRF into Evergreen (LP#2032835). We were waiting to >>> replace ejabberd with Redis before doing that; Redis is now supported in >>> Evergreen, but I don't know if anyone has revisited merging OpenSRF into EG >>> since then. >>> > - There are a number of bugs targeted to "4.0-beta" in Launchpad, but >>> AFAIK they are just targeting the next major release, whether it's called >>> 4.0 or not. >>> > >>> > Any opinions? I would prefer to reserve "4.0" for a release that is >>> somehow "more" than just the next major release, but I recognize that >>> version numbering is basically arbitrary. >>> > -- >>> > Jeff Davis >>> > BC Libraries Cooperative >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org >>> > To unsubscribe send an email to >>> evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jason Stephenson (he/him) >> ILS Manager, C/W MARS, Inc. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> [image: icon] jstephen...@cwmars.org | [image: icon]www.cwmars.org >> >> [image: icon] 508-755-3323 x 418 >> _______________________________________________ >> Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org >> > > > -- > Galen Charlton > Implementation and IT Manager > Equinox Open Library Initiative > g...@equinoxoli.org > https://www.equinoxOLI.org > phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) > direct: 770-709-5581 > <http://evergreen-ils.org> > _______________________________________________ > Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org > To unsubscribe send an email to evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org >
_______________________________________________ Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org To unsubscribe send an email to evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org
