Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
It seems that everyone is in favor of renaming 0.8.3 to 0.9.0. I made the following changes in the jira: (1) rename version 0.9.0 to 0.10.0.0; (2) rename version 0.8.3 to 0.9.0.0; (3) add version 0.9.0.1. Thanks, Jun On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Joe Steinwrote: > Jun, > > Makes sense, thanks! > > ~ Joestein > On Sep 10, 2015 1:05 PM, "Jun Rao" wrote: > > > Hi, Joe, > > > > One of the reasons that we have been doing beta releases before is to > > stabilize the public apis. However, in trunk, we have introduced the api > > stability annotation. The new java consumer api is marked as unstable. > With > > this, even if we name the first release of the new consumer as 0.9.0.0 > > (i.e., w/o beta), the users will understand that the api is subject to > > change. Then, we just need to be prepared for 0.9.0.x releases soon after > > for critical bug fixes since there are lots of new code in 0.9.0.0. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Stein wrote: > > > > > are we going to deem the new consumer in 0.9.0 as beta? Do we want > to-do > > a > > > 0.9.0-beta and this way when the consumer is g2g we 0.9.0.0 > > > > > > 0.9.0-beta also allows us to release a lot of new things a bit sooner > and > > > have some good cycles of fixes (because you know they will come) > > > > > > There is enough new stuff that 0.9-something makes sense, +1 on not > 0.8.3 > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Grant Henke > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 for 0.9 > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for 0.9. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira < > g...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with > > > > security, > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much > > > > scoped > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so > many > > > > > awesome > > > > > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in > > bunch > > > > of > > > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix > > version" > > > > > field > > > > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Grant Henke > > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera > > > > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | > linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 for 0.9 On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavićwrote: > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9 > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao wrote: > > > +1 for 0.9. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9. > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, > > new > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped > > for > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many > awesome > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" > field > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > -- Grant Henke Software Engineer | Cloudera gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
are we going to deem the new consumer in 0.9.0 as beta? Do we want to-do a 0.9.0-beta and this way when the consumer is g2g we 0.9.0.0 0.9.0-beta also allows us to release a lot of new things a bit sooner and have some good cycles of fixes (because you know they will come) There is enough new stuff that 0.9-something makes sense, +1 on not 0.8.3 On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Grant Henkewrote: > +1 for 0.9 > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9 > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao wrote: > > > > > +1 for 0.9. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9. > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with > security, > > > new > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much > scoped > > > for > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many > > awesome > > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch > of > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" > > field > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Grant Henke > Software Engineer | Cloudera > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Jun, Makes sense, thanks! ~ Joestein On Sep 10, 2015 1:05 PM, "Jun Rao"wrote: > Hi, Joe, > > One of the reasons that we have been doing beta releases before is to > stabilize the public apis. However, in trunk, we have introduced the api > stability annotation. The new java consumer api is marked as unstable. With > this, even if we name the first release of the new consumer as 0.9.0.0 > (i.e., w/o beta), the users will understand that the api is subject to > change. Then, we just need to be prepared for 0.9.0.x releases soon after > for critical bug fixes since there are lots of new code in 0.9.0.0. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Stein wrote: > > > are we going to deem the new consumer in 0.9.0 as beta? Do we want to-do > a > > 0.9.0-beta and this way when the consumer is g2g we 0.9.0.0 > > > > 0.9.0-beta also allows us to release a lot of new things a bit sooner and > > have some good cycles of fixes (because you know they will come) > > > > There is enough new stuff that 0.9-something makes sense, +1 on not 0.8.3 > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Grant Henke > wrote: > > > > > +1 for 0.9 > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9 > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 for 0.9. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with > > > security, > > > > > new > > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much > > > scoped > > > > > for > > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many > > > > awesome > > > > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in > bunch > > > of > > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix > version" > > > > field > > > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Grant Henke > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera > > > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > > > > >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 (non-binding) for 0.9 On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Raowrote: > +1 for 0.9. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, > new > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped > for > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > > > everywhere. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/ No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram < rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently targeted > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release change > when it is renamed? > Thanks, > > Rajini > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Krepswrote: > > > +1 on 0.9 > > > > -Jay > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, > new > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped > for > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > > > everywhere. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 on 0.9.0 On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singhwrote: > +1 on 0.9.0 > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/ > > > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues. > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently > > targeted > > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues > > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release > > change > > > when it is renamed? > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > > > > > > > +1 on 0.9 > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with > security, > > > new > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much > scoped > > > for > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many > > awesome > > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch > of > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" > > field > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > Ashish >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 on 0.9.0 On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapirawrote: > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/ > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently > targeted > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release > change > > when it is renamed? > > Thanks, > > > > Rajini > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > > > > > +1 on 0.9 > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, > > new > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped > > for > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many > awesome > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" > field > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > -- Regards, Ashish
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Based on the scope, prefer 0.9. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jay Krepswrote: > +1 on 0.9 > > -Jay > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > > everywhere. > > > > Thoughts? > > > -- Thanks, Neha
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 on 0.9 - we may want to adjust our ApiVersions accordingly (i.e., 0.8.3 -> 0.9.0) On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Guozhang Wangwrote: > +1 on 0.9 as well. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Aditya Auradkar < > aaurad...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote: > >> +1 on 0.9 >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edward Ribeiro >> wrote: >> >> > +1 on 0.9.0 >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singh >> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 on 0.9.0 >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/ >> > > > >> > > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues. >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram < >> > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently >> > > > targeted >> > > > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues >> > > > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release >> > > > change >> > > > > when it is renamed? >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > >> > > > > Rajini >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +1 on 0.9 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -Jay >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with >> > > security, >> > > > > new >> > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much >> > > scoped >> > > > > for >> > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many >> > > > awesome >> > > > > > > features deserve a better release number. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in >> bunch >> > > of >> > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix >> version" >> > > > field >> > > > > > > everywhere. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thoughts? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Ashish >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > -- Guozhang
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 (non-binding) for 0.9. Ismael On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapirawrote: > Hi Kafka Fans, > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > features deserve a better release number. > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > everywhere. > > Thoughts? >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 on 0.9 as well. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Aditya Auradkar < aaurad...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote: > +1 on 0.9 > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edward Ribeiro> wrote: > > > +1 on 0.9.0 > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singh > wrote: > > > > > +1 on 0.9.0 > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira > wrote: > > > > > > > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/ > > > > > > > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently > > > > targeted > > > > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues > > > > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release > > > > change > > > > > when it is renamed? > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on 0.9 > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with > > > security, > > > > > new > > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much > > > scoped > > > > > for > > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many > > > > awesome > > > > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in > bunch > > > of > > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix > version" > > > > field > > > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ashish > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 for 0.9 - we may want to get rid of deprecated configs if possible in this, instead of waiting for 1.0. Thanks, Mayuresh On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Joel Koshywrote: > +1 on 0.9 - we may want to adjust our ApiVersions accordingly (i.e., > 0.8.3 -> 0.9.0) > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > +1 on 0.9 as well. > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Aditya Auradkar < > > aaurad...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> +1 on 0.9 > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edward Ribeiro < > edward.ribe...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > +1 on 0.9.0 > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singh > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > +1 on 0.9.0 > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/ > >> > > > > >> > > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > >> > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features > currently > >> > > > targeted > >> > > > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the > issues > >> > > > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the > release > >> > > > change > >> > > > > when it is renamed? > >> > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Rajini > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > +1 on 0.9 > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -Jay > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira < > g...@confluent.io > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with > >> > > security, > >> > > > > new > >> > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty > much > >> > > scoped > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so > many > >> > > > awesome > >> > > > > > > features deserve a better release number. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in > >> bunch > >> > > of > >> > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix > >> version" > >> > > > field > >> > > > > > > everywhere. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thoughts? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Ashish > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > -- -Regards, Mayuresh R. Gharat (862) 250-7125
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Hi Gwen, I certainly think 0.9.0 is better than 0.8.3. As regards semantic versioning, do we have a plan for a 1.0 release? IIUC, compatibility rules don't really apply for pre-1.0 stuff. I'd argue that Kafka already qualifies for 1.x. Aditya On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Gwen Shapirawrote: > We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to converge > toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/ > > 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward compatible > manner. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > > > Hi Gwen, > > > > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for > > this community? Could you give me some insight here? > > > > -Flavio > > > > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, > new > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped > for > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > > > everywhere. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > >
Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Hi Kafka Fans, What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome features deserve a better release number. The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field everywhere. Thoughts?
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Hi Gwen, What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for this community? Could you give me some insight here? -Flavio > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapirawrote: > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > features deserve a better release number. > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > everywhere. > > Thoughts?
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to converge toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/ 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward compatible manner. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueirawrote: > Hi Gwen, > > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for > this community? Could you give me some insight here? > > -Flavio > > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > > everywhere. > > > > Thoughts? > >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
I don't know of any 1.0 plans. IMO, it makes sense to have 0.9.0 out first, and then discuss what it will take to get to 1.0. Does that make sense? On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Aditya Auradkar < aaurad...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Gwen, > > I certainly think 0.9.0 is better than 0.8.3. > As regards semantic versioning, do we have a plan for a 1.0 release? IIUC, > compatibility rules don't really apply for pre-1.0 stuff. I'd argue that > Kafka already qualifies for 1.x. > > Aditya > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Gwen Shapirawrote: > > > We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to > converge > > toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/ > > > > 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward > compatible > > manner. > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira > wrote: > > > > > Hi Gwen, > > > > > > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for > > > this community? Could you give me some insight here? > > > > > > -Flavio > > > > > > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, > > new > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped > > for > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many > awesome > > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" > field > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Based on the new feature in next release, 0.9 looks reasonable. There might be some other things worth thinking about. Although we have a lot of new feature added, many of them are actually either still in development or not well tested yet. For example, for security features, only SSL is done and tested. New consumer API might still subject to changes. In that case. If we release 0.9 now, we might need a lot of 0.9.x.x version to fix bugs and change APIs later. I thought the original plan was to let 0.8.3 to have both new and old consumer and remove the old consumer in 0.9. If we don't have any stability guarantee for versions, I think either way is fine. But I feel slightly better to have a transitional version 0.8.3. It might give us some room to test and stabilize. Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Gwen Shapirawrote: > We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to converge > toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/ > > 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward compatible > manner. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > > > Hi Gwen, > > > > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for > > this community? Could you give me some insight here? > > > > -Flavio > > > > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, > new > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped > for > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > > > everywhere. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > >
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
+1 for 0.9. Thanks, Jun On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Jumawrote: > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9. > > Ismael > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > > everywhere. > > > > Thoughts? > > >