Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Hi folks, I’ve created a pull request for the website change: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1834 Once the website is updated, I’ll make the announcement for 3.5 EoL. Thanks, Andor > On 2022. Feb 17., at 16:54, Szalay-Bekő Máté > wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification, I like the plan! > >> having 2 active versions (stable and current) and when a new minor > version is announced, the least recent will get another 6 months of support > > What does this mean exactly? Just to be on the same page, this is what you > propose if we release 3.8.0 until let's say end of February 2022? > - 3.5 EoL 1st of June 2022 > - 3.6 EoL 1st of Sept 2022 (~6 months after 3.8.0 release) > - 3.7 will become "stable" > - 3.8 will become "current" > > Did anyone in the community test the latest 3.7 (which is still 3.7.0) with > large clusters in production? Are we confident saying 3.7 is stable? > (on the other hand, if we don't do the announcement, most likely people > won't start to migrate to 3.7) > > Mate > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:33 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > >> Andor, >> >> Il Mer 16 Feb 2022, 12:47 Andor Molnar ha scritto: >> >>> Okay, I agree that keeping 2 active versions rather than tying ourselves >>> to some fixed deadlines makes more sense for ZooKeeper. Let’s go with >> this >>> approach then if there’s no other objections: >>> >>> 1) Add this information to the Releases web page: I’ll describe that >>> ZooKeeper is having 2 active versions (stable and current) and when a new >>> minor version is announced, the least recent will get another 6 months of >>> support (security and bugfixes), but after that it will become EoL. That >>> means no further releases are expected from the community and users >> should >>> follow the supported upgrade path. I’ll send this out for review soon. >>> >> >> +1 >> >> >>> 2) Announce 3.5 EoL 1st of June 2022. (sorry Enrico, the end of the long >>> discussion is essentially what you originally proposed) >>> >> >> +1 >> Thanks >> >> >> Enrico >> >> >> >>> Please let me know if you have concerns with this path. >>> >>> Andor >>> >>> >>> On 2022. Feb 14., at 17:07, Patrick Hunt wrote: "Define what EOL means" - whatever we do let's make sure it gets onto >> the "releases" page so that folks have official information they can >>> reference from the project. I like having a max of 2 versions. Stable and current. I agree that due >>> to our lack of communication/policy so far we should ensure that people >> have opportunity to move/support on the release versions (3.x minors) we >>> current support. I like the idea of tying old releases to new ones. I don't think tying ourselves to a specific, long term is good though. It definitely >> reduces flexibility. Same with saying that new minors are going to be released every Y time. Can't we just say that a stable release will be supported >>> for a minimum of 6 months (other timeframe?) after moving the stable >>> indicator from 3.x to 3.x+1. We then have the flexibility to keep it around >> longer >>> if there is a reason why folks want to stick for a longer time (eg major changes in the more recent versions) Patrick On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:08 AM Christopher >> wrote: > Regarding the suggestion: "Maybe we can also communicate that we’re >>> going > to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years." If you > release new versions less frequently than that, the number of >>> maintenance > versions will go to 0 (though, in practice, you wouldn't EOL your >>> current > release). If you release more frequently, you'll be stuck maintaining >> an > increasing number of versions. > > To keep the maintenance burden relatively consistent, I suggest tying >>> your > EOL schedule to your release schedule, so when you release a new >>> version, > you drop the oldest one. If you release every 2 years, then it works >> out > the same. But if you release more or less often, your maintenance >> burden > stays consistent. > > I would start by deciding the minimum number of concurrent versions >> you > want to maintain. I suggest no more than 2, but ZK currently has 3, >> and >>> is > about to be 4 soon. If you're not marking specific versions as >> long-term > stable, then the default would be to assume you're maintaining the >> most > recent versions. > > Then, consider churn. If you release frequently, you may want to set a > minimum age for maintenance, so users aren't forced to upgrade too >>> often. > So, if you start with 2 concurrent versions and you have a few >> versions > released rapidly, you may temporarily need to support up to 3 or 4 >>> releases > until the oldest ones reach the minimum age, like 2 years for example, >>> and > are able to be EOL'd. >
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Thanks for the clarification, I like the plan! > having 2 active versions (stable and current) and when a new minor version is announced, the least recent will get another 6 months of support What does this mean exactly? Just to be on the same page, this is what you propose if we release 3.8.0 until let's say end of February 2022? - 3.5 EoL 1st of June 2022 - 3.6 EoL 1st of Sept 2022 (~6 months after 3.8.0 release) - 3.7 will become "stable" - 3.8 will become "current" Did anyone in the community test the latest 3.7 (which is still 3.7.0) with large clusters in production? Are we confident saying 3.7 is stable? (on the other hand, if we don't do the announcement, most likely people won't start to migrate to 3.7) Mate On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:33 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Andor, > > Il Mer 16 Feb 2022, 12:47 Andor Molnar ha scritto: > > > Okay, I agree that keeping 2 active versions rather than tying ourselves > > to some fixed deadlines makes more sense for ZooKeeper. Let’s go with > this > > approach then if there’s no other objections: > > > > 1) Add this information to the Releases web page: I’ll describe that > > ZooKeeper is having 2 active versions (stable and current) and when a new > > minor version is announced, the least recent will get another 6 months of > > support (security and bugfixes), but after that it will become EoL. That > > means no further releases are expected from the community and users > should > > follow the supported upgrade path. I’ll send this out for review soon. > > > > +1 > > > > 2) Announce 3.5 EoL 1st of June 2022. (sorry Enrico, the end of the long > > discussion is essentially what you originally proposed) > > > > +1 > Thanks > > > Enrico > > > > > Please let me know if you have concerns with this path. > > > > Andor > > > > > > > > > On 2022. Feb 14., at 17:07, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > > > > > "Define what EOL means" - whatever we do let's make sure it gets onto > the > > > "releases" page so that folks have official information they can > > reference > > > from the project. > > > > > > I like having a max of 2 versions. Stable and current. I agree that due > > to > > > our lack of communication/policy so far we should ensure that people > have > > > opportunity to move/support on the release versions (3.x minors) we > > current > > > support. > > > > > > I like the idea of tying old releases to new ones. I don't think tying > > > ourselves to a specific, long term is good though. It definitely > reduces > > > flexibility. Same with saying that new minors are going to be released > > > every Y time. Can't we just say that a stable release will be supported > > for > > > a minimum of 6 months (other timeframe?) after moving the stable > > indicator > > > from 3.x to 3.x+1. We then have the flexibility to keep it around > longer > > if > > > there is a reason why folks want to stick for a longer time (eg major > > > changes in the more recent versions) > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:08 AM Christopher > wrote: > > > > > >> Regarding the suggestion: "Maybe we can also communicate that we’re > > going > > >> to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years." If you > > >> release new versions less frequently than that, the number of > > maintenance > > >> versions will go to 0 (though, in practice, you wouldn't EOL your > > current > > >> release). If you release more frequently, you'll be stuck maintaining > an > > >> increasing number of versions. > > >> > > >> To keep the maintenance burden relatively consistent, I suggest tying > > your > > >> EOL schedule to your release schedule, so when you release a new > > version, > > >> you drop the oldest one. If you release every 2 years, then it works > out > > >> the same. But if you release more or less often, your maintenance > burden > > >> stays consistent. > > >> > > >> I would start by deciding the minimum number of concurrent versions > you > > >> want to maintain. I suggest no more than 2, but ZK currently has 3, > and > > is > > >> about to be 4 soon. If you're not marking specific versions as > long-term > > >> stable, then the default would be to assume you're maintaining the > most > > >> recent versions. > > >> > > >> Then, consider churn. If you release frequently, you may want to set a > > >> minimum age for maintenance, so users aren't forced to upgrade too > > often. > > >> So, if you start with 2 concurrent versions and you have a few > versions > > >> released rapidly, you may temporarily need to support up to 3 or 4 > > releases > > >> until the oldest ones reach the minimum age, like 2 years for example, > > and > > >> are able to be EOL'd. > > >> > > >> Then, consider upgrade overlap. When you release, you could EOL the > > oldest > > >> version right away. But, it might be nicer to wait a few months, or > > maybe > > >> up to a year, before the oldest one is EOL'd. > > >> > > >> I previously mentioned Accumulo's "LTM" strategy. These are the core >
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Andor, Il Mer 16 Feb 2022, 12:47 Andor Molnar ha scritto: > Okay, I agree that keeping 2 active versions rather than tying ourselves > to some fixed deadlines makes more sense for ZooKeeper. Let’s go with this > approach then if there’s no other objections: > > 1) Add this information to the Releases web page: I’ll describe that > ZooKeeper is having 2 active versions (stable and current) and when a new > minor version is announced, the least recent will get another 6 months of > support (security and bugfixes), but after that it will become EoL. That > means no further releases are expected from the community and users should > follow the supported upgrade path. I’ll send this out for review soon. > +1 > 2) Announce 3.5 EoL 1st of June 2022. (sorry Enrico, the end of the long > discussion is essentially what you originally proposed) > +1 Thanks Enrico > Please let me know if you have concerns with this path. > > Andor > > > > > On 2022. Feb 14., at 17:07, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > > > "Define what EOL means" - whatever we do let's make sure it gets onto the > > "releases" page so that folks have official information they can > reference > > from the project. > > > > I like having a max of 2 versions. Stable and current. I agree that due > to > > our lack of communication/policy so far we should ensure that people have > > opportunity to move/support on the release versions (3.x minors) we > current > > support. > > > > I like the idea of tying old releases to new ones. I don't think tying > > ourselves to a specific, long term is good though. It definitely reduces > > flexibility. Same with saying that new minors are going to be released > > every Y time. Can't we just say that a stable release will be supported > for > > a minimum of 6 months (other timeframe?) after moving the stable > indicator > > from 3.x to 3.x+1. We then have the flexibility to keep it around longer > if > > there is a reason why folks want to stick for a longer time (eg major > > changes in the more recent versions) > > > > Patrick > > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:08 AM Christopher wrote: > > > >> Regarding the suggestion: "Maybe we can also communicate that we’re > going > >> to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years." If you > >> release new versions less frequently than that, the number of > maintenance > >> versions will go to 0 (though, in practice, you wouldn't EOL your > current > >> release). If you release more frequently, you'll be stuck maintaining an > >> increasing number of versions. > >> > >> To keep the maintenance burden relatively consistent, I suggest tying > your > >> EOL schedule to your release schedule, so when you release a new > version, > >> you drop the oldest one. If you release every 2 years, then it works out > >> the same. But if you release more or less often, your maintenance burden > >> stays consistent. > >> > >> I would start by deciding the minimum number of concurrent versions you > >> want to maintain. I suggest no more than 2, but ZK currently has 3, and > is > >> about to be 4 soon. If you're not marking specific versions as long-term > >> stable, then the default would be to assume you're maintaining the most > >> recent versions. > >> > >> Then, consider churn. If you release frequently, you may want to set a > >> minimum age for maintenance, so users aren't forced to upgrade too > often. > >> So, if you start with 2 concurrent versions and you have a few versions > >> released rapidly, you may temporarily need to support up to 3 or 4 > releases > >> until the oldest ones reach the minimum age, like 2 years for example, > and > >> are able to be EOL'd. > >> > >> Then, consider upgrade overlap. When you release, you could EOL the > oldest > >> version right away. But, it might be nicer to wait a few months, or > maybe > >> up to a year, before the oldest one is EOL'd. > >> > >> I previously mentioned Accumulo's "LTM" strategy. These are the core > >> considerations we had in mind. So, for example, we support a minimum of > 1 > >> LTM version, with a 1 year overlap. We don't release frequently enough > for > >> the minimum age to be of concern. However, we did want to allow for > >> intermediate feature preview releases that are immediately EOL as soon > as a > >> newer version is available. So, at any given time, we are maintaining > >> between 1 and 2 LTM releases, and no more than 1 non-LTM release. We > also > >> use this to provide users with information about supported upgrade > paths so > >> users can upgrade from LTM to LTM, skipping over non-LTM releases, or > they > >> can stay on the latest (whether or not it is LTM). > >> > >> For ZooKeeper, I would suggest: > >> * maintain at least 2 versions (currently 3.6 and 3.7) > >> * maintain for at least 3 years before EOL > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:10 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks for the pointers. It was good to help refreshing my memory. > >>> > >>> We definitely missed the
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Okay, I agree that keeping 2 active versions rather than tying ourselves to some fixed deadlines makes more sense for ZooKeeper. Let’s go with this approach then if there’s no other objections: 1) Add this information to the Releases web page: I’ll describe that ZooKeeper is having 2 active versions (stable and current) and when a new minor version is announced, the least recent will get another 6 months of support (security and bugfixes), but after that it will become EoL. That means no further releases are expected from the community and users should follow the supported upgrade path. I’ll send this out for review soon. 2) Announce 3.5 EoL 1st of June 2022. (sorry Enrico, the end of the long discussion is essentially what you originally proposed) Please let me know if you have concerns with this path. Andor > On 2022. Feb 14., at 17:07, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > "Define what EOL means" - whatever we do let's make sure it gets onto the > "releases" page so that folks have official information they can reference > from the project. > > I like having a max of 2 versions. Stable and current. I agree that due to > our lack of communication/policy so far we should ensure that people have > opportunity to move/support on the release versions (3.x minors) we current > support. > > I like the idea of tying old releases to new ones. I don't think tying > ourselves to a specific, long term is good though. It definitely reduces > flexibility. Same with saying that new minors are going to be released > every Y time. Can't we just say that a stable release will be supported for > a minimum of 6 months (other timeframe?) after moving the stable indicator > from 3.x to 3.x+1. We then have the flexibility to keep it around longer if > there is a reason why folks want to stick for a longer time (eg major > changes in the more recent versions) > > Patrick > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:08 AM Christopher wrote: > >> Regarding the suggestion: "Maybe we can also communicate that we’re going >> to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years." If you >> release new versions less frequently than that, the number of maintenance >> versions will go to 0 (though, in practice, you wouldn't EOL your current >> release). If you release more frequently, you'll be stuck maintaining an >> increasing number of versions. >> >> To keep the maintenance burden relatively consistent, I suggest tying your >> EOL schedule to your release schedule, so when you release a new version, >> you drop the oldest one. If you release every 2 years, then it works out >> the same. But if you release more or less often, your maintenance burden >> stays consistent. >> >> I would start by deciding the minimum number of concurrent versions you >> want to maintain. I suggest no more than 2, but ZK currently has 3, and is >> about to be 4 soon. If you're not marking specific versions as long-term >> stable, then the default would be to assume you're maintaining the most >> recent versions. >> >> Then, consider churn. If you release frequently, you may want to set a >> minimum age for maintenance, so users aren't forced to upgrade too often. >> So, if you start with 2 concurrent versions and you have a few versions >> released rapidly, you may temporarily need to support up to 3 or 4 releases >> until the oldest ones reach the minimum age, like 2 years for example, and >> are able to be EOL'd. >> >> Then, consider upgrade overlap. When you release, you could EOL the oldest >> version right away. But, it might be nicer to wait a few months, or maybe >> up to a year, before the oldest one is EOL'd. >> >> I previously mentioned Accumulo's "LTM" strategy. These are the core >> considerations we had in mind. So, for example, we support a minimum of 1 >> LTM version, with a 1 year overlap. We don't release frequently enough for >> the minimum age to be of concern. However, we did want to allow for >> intermediate feature preview releases that are immediately EOL as soon as a >> newer version is available. So, at any given time, we are maintaining >> between 1 and 2 LTM releases, and no more than 1 non-LTM release. We also >> use this to provide users with information about supported upgrade paths so >> users can upgrade from LTM to LTM, skipping over non-LTM releases, or they >> can stay on the latest (whether or not it is LTM). >> >> For ZooKeeper, I would suggest: >> * maintain at least 2 versions (currently 3.6 and 3.7) >> * maintain for at least 3 years before EOL >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:10 AM Andor Molnar wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the pointers. It was good to help refreshing my memory. >>> >>> We definitely missed the communication when stable and current links were >>> flipped from one version to another. Things will get more interesting >> when >>> Enrico finally releases 3.8.0. We’ll end up having 3 different “stable" >>> branches and 3.8 will become the “current”. >>> >>> What can we do with this? >>>
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
"Define what EOL means" - whatever we do let's make sure it gets onto the "releases" page so that folks have official information they can reference from the project. I like having a max of 2 versions. Stable and current. I agree that due to our lack of communication/policy so far we should ensure that people have opportunity to move/support on the release versions (3.x minors) we current support. I like the idea of tying old releases to new ones. I don't think tying ourselves to a specific, long term is good though. It definitely reduces flexibility. Same with saying that new minors are going to be released every Y time. Can't we just say that a stable release will be supported for a minimum of 6 months (other timeframe?) after moving the stable indicator from 3.x to 3.x+1. We then have the flexibility to keep it around longer if there is a reason why folks want to stick for a longer time (eg major changes in the more recent versions) Patrick On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:08 AM Christopher wrote: > Regarding the suggestion: "Maybe we can also communicate that we’re going > to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years." If you > release new versions less frequently than that, the number of maintenance > versions will go to 0 (though, in practice, you wouldn't EOL your current > release). If you release more frequently, you'll be stuck maintaining an > increasing number of versions. > > To keep the maintenance burden relatively consistent, I suggest tying your > EOL schedule to your release schedule, so when you release a new version, > you drop the oldest one. If you release every 2 years, then it works out > the same. But if you release more or less often, your maintenance burden > stays consistent. > > I would start by deciding the minimum number of concurrent versions you > want to maintain. I suggest no more than 2, but ZK currently has 3, and is > about to be 4 soon. If you're not marking specific versions as long-term > stable, then the default would be to assume you're maintaining the most > recent versions. > > Then, consider churn. If you release frequently, you may want to set a > minimum age for maintenance, so users aren't forced to upgrade too often. > So, if you start with 2 concurrent versions and you have a few versions > released rapidly, you may temporarily need to support up to 3 or 4 releases > until the oldest ones reach the minimum age, like 2 years for example, and > are able to be EOL'd. > > Then, consider upgrade overlap. When you release, you could EOL the oldest > version right away. But, it might be nicer to wait a few months, or maybe > up to a year, before the oldest one is EOL'd. > > I previously mentioned Accumulo's "LTM" strategy. These are the core > considerations we had in mind. So, for example, we support a minimum of 1 > LTM version, with a 1 year overlap. We don't release frequently enough for > the minimum age to be of concern. However, we did want to allow for > intermediate feature preview releases that are immediately EOL as soon as a > newer version is available. So, at any given time, we are maintaining > between 1 and 2 LTM releases, and no more than 1 non-LTM release. We also > use this to provide users with information about supported upgrade paths so > users can upgrade from LTM to LTM, skipping over non-LTM releases, or they > can stay on the latest (whether or not it is LTM). > > For ZooKeeper, I would suggest: > * maintain at least 2 versions (currently 3.6 and 3.7) > * maintain for at least 3 years before EOL > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:10 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > > Thanks for the pointers. It was good to help refreshing my memory. > > > > We definitely missed the communication when stable and current links were > > flipped from one version to another. Things will get more interesting > when > > Enrico finally releases 3.8.0. We’ll end up having 3 different “stable" > > branches and 3.8 will become the “current”. > > > > What can we do with this? > > > > Announcing 3.5 EoL > > ~~ > > > > This should have been done before flipping the stable pointer, but > anyway, > > here’re the points that we considered when doing the same for 3.4: > > - Discussion happened in March/April 2020, EoL was announced for 1st of > > June, 2020 (3 months ahead). > > > > - Define what EOL means - This is already discussed, text can be > > copy-pasted from 3.4 EoL message, > > > > - Provide guidelines for upgrading paths, > > > > - State interoperability guarantees > >- Previous version of ZooKeeper client is able to connect to server as > > long > > as there’s no new feature enforced on server side, > >- Previous version of ZooKeeper server is able to accept connections > > from > > clients as long as they don’t want to use new features. > > > > - Curator already supports later versions - Is it true for 3.6, 3.7? > > > > It’s February now, so if we nail down the above points, I don’t see any > > objections against announcing
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Regarding the suggestion: "Maybe we can also communicate that we’re going to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years." If you release new versions less frequently than that, the number of maintenance versions will go to 0 (though, in practice, you wouldn't EOL your current release). If you release more frequently, you'll be stuck maintaining an increasing number of versions. To keep the maintenance burden relatively consistent, I suggest tying your EOL schedule to your release schedule, so when you release a new version, you drop the oldest one. If you release every 2 years, then it works out the same. But if you release more or less often, your maintenance burden stays consistent. I would start by deciding the minimum number of concurrent versions you want to maintain. I suggest no more than 2, but ZK currently has 3, and is about to be 4 soon. If you're not marking specific versions as long-term stable, then the default would be to assume you're maintaining the most recent versions. Then, consider churn. If you release frequently, you may want to set a minimum age for maintenance, so users aren't forced to upgrade too often. So, if you start with 2 concurrent versions and you have a few versions released rapidly, you may temporarily need to support up to 3 or 4 releases until the oldest ones reach the minimum age, like 2 years for example, and are able to be EOL'd. Then, consider upgrade overlap. When you release, you could EOL the oldest version right away. But, it might be nicer to wait a few months, or maybe up to a year, before the oldest one is EOL'd. I previously mentioned Accumulo's "LTM" strategy. These are the core considerations we had in mind. So, for example, we support a minimum of 1 LTM version, with a 1 year overlap. We don't release frequently enough for the minimum age to be of concern. However, we did want to allow for intermediate feature preview releases that are immediately EOL as soon as a newer version is available. So, at any given time, we are maintaining between 1 and 2 LTM releases, and no more than 1 non-LTM release. We also use this to provide users with information about supported upgrade paths so users can upgrade from LTM to LTM, skipping over non-LTM releases, or they can stay on the latest (whether or not it is LTM). For ZooKeeper, I would suggest: * maintain at least 2 versions (currently 3.6 and 3.7) * maintain for at least 3 years before EOL On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:10 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > Thanks for the pointers. It was good to help refreshing my memory. > > We definitely missed the communication when stable and current links were > flipped from one version to another. Things will get more interesting when > Enrico finally releases 3.8.0. We’ll end up having 3 different “stable" > branches and 3.8 will become the “current”. > > What can we do with this? > > Announcing 3.5 EoL > ~~ > > This should have been done before flipping the stable pointer, but anyway, > here’re the points that we considered when doing the same for 3.4: > - Discussion happened in March/April 2020, EoL was announced for 1st of > June, 2020 (3 months ahead). > > - Define what EOL means - This is already discussed, text can be > copy-pasted from 3.4 EoL message, > > - Provide guidelines for upgrading paths, > > - State interoperability guarantees >- Previous version of ZooKeeper client is able to connect to server as > long > as there’s no new feature enforced on server side, >- Previous version of ZooKeeper server is able to accept connections > from > clients as long as they don’t want to use new features. > > - Curator already supports later versions - Is it true for 3.6, 3.7? > > It’s February now, so if we nail down the above points, I don’t see any > objections against announcing 3.5 EoL for 1st of June, 2022 (2 years after > 3.4 EoL, providing 4 months to upgrade). Maybe we can also communicate that > we’re going to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years. > > Andor > > > > > > On 2022. Feb 9., at 20:28, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:07 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > > >> Hi Pat, > >> > >> Yeah, I asked for a more specific suggestion from you. If we avoid using > >> the LTS in ZooKeeper releases and stay with the stable/latest labels, > how > >> would you label the current maintained versions? > >> > > > > Ah, ok. No worries Andor, I misunderstood. My 0.02: > > > > We have "stable" and "current" already identified. > > https://dlcdn.apache.org/zookeeper/ > > Stable was last updated in April of 2021. My recommendation is that we > > should change the process to notify EOL prior to updating e.g. "stable" > > reference. Stable is our indication w/o using the LTS label. As long as > we > > have a public policy & associated announcements, I think that's fine. > > > > I also bring your attention to this conversation thread from March 2020 > for > > the previous EOL'd (3.4) release line: > >
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Thanks for the pointers. It was good to help refreshing my memory. We definitely missed the communication when stable and current links were flipped from one version to another. Things will get more interesting when Enrico finally releases 3.8.0. We’ll end up having 3 different “stable" branches and 3.8 will become the “current”. What can we do with this? Announcing 3.5 EoL ~~ This should have been done before flipping the stable pointer, but anyway, here’re the points that we considered when doing the same for 3.4: - Discussion happened in March/April 2020, EoL was announced for 1st of June, 2020 (3 months ahead). - Define what EOL means - This is already discussed, text can be copy-pasted from 3.4 EoL message, - Provide guidelines for upgrading paths, - State interoperability guarantees - Previous version of ZooKeeper client is able to connect to server as long as there’s no new feature enforced on server side, - Previous version of ZooKeeper server is able to accept connections from clients as long as they don’t want to use new features. - Curator already supports later versions - Is it true for 3.6, 3.7? It’s February now, so if we nail down the above points, I don’t see any objections against announcing 3.5 EoL for 1st of June, 2022 (2 years after 3.4 EoL, providing 4 months to upgrade). Maybe we can also communicate that we’re going to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years. Andor > On 2022. Feb 9., at 20:28, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:07 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > >> Hi Pat, >> >> Yeah, I asked for a more specific suggestion from you. If we avoid using >> the LTS in ZooKeeper releases and stay with the stable/latest labels, how >> would you label the current maintained versions? >> > > Ah, ok. No worries Andor, I misunderstood. My 0.02: > > We have "stable" and "current" already identified. > https://dlcdn.apache.org/zookeeper/ > Stable was last updated in April of 2021. My recommendation is that we > should change the process to notify EOL prior to updating e.g. "stable" > reference. Stable is our indication w/o using the LTS label. As long as we > have a public policy & associated announcements, I think that's fine. > > I also bring your attention to this conversation thread from March 2020 for > the previous EOL'd (3.4) release line: > https://markmail.org/message/b2pqcztlb2ixoyjp > Some good ideas in there from many folks, I think we settled on a timeframe > we felt comfortable with, at least at the time. Unfortunately we did not > follow through with a plan for future releases. Perhaps we can do that now. > > Regards, > > Patrick > > >> >> Enrico is about to release 3.8.0 soon, so we’ll end up having four >> versions in maintenance. What should we do with it to reduce the >> maintenance cost? >> >> Andor >> >> >> >> >>> On 2022. Feb 4., at 17:58, Patrick Hunt wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:19 AM Andor Molnar wrote: >>> More specifically? >>> >>> Are you asking me? :-) "LTS" literally has a definition in wikipedia: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support >>> >>> Stable 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and EoL 3.5 at the end of the year (1st of >> Jan, 2023)? Andor > On 2022. Feb 1., at 16:41, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > "LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. >> JDK > LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with the > stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in terms > of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. > > Patrick > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, >> just >> my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper >> (4 >> years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to >> be >> honest I’m not participating in it. >> >> As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the >> “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches that >> improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so >> announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily >> bad. >> >> As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I >> think >> the following could also be considered for the community: >> >> Now: >> >> master >> -- >> 3.7 >> 3.6 >> 3.5 LTS >> -- >> 3.4 EoL >> >> Can become: >> >> master >> -- >> 3.8 LTS >> 3.7 >> 3.5 LTS >> -- >> 3.6 EoL >> 3.4 EoL >> >> In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Andor
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:07 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > Hi Pat, > > Yeah, I asked for a more specific suggestion from you. If we avoid using > the LTS in ZooKeeper releases and stay with the stable/latest labels, how > would you label the current maintained versions? > Ah, ok. No worries Andor, I misunderstood. My 0.02: We have "stable" and "current" already identified. https://dlcdn.apache.org/zookeeper/ Stable was last updated in April of 2021. My recommendation is that we should change the process to notify EOL prior to updating e.g. "stable" reference. Stable is our indication w/o using the LTS label. As long as we have a public policy & associated announcements, I think that's fine. I also bring your attention to this conversation thread from March 2020 for the previous EOL'd (3.4) release line: https://markmail.org/message/b2pqcztlb2ixoyjp Some good ideas in there from many folks, I think we settled on a timeframe we felt comfortable with, at least at the time. Unfortunately we did not follow through with a plan for future releases. Perhaps we can do that now. Regards, Patrick > > Enrico is about to release 3.8.0 soon, so we’ll end up having four > versions in maintenance. What should we do with it to reduce the > maintenance cost? > > Andor > > > > > > On 2022. Feb 4., at 17:58, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:19 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > > >> More specifically? > >> > > > > Are you asking me? :-) "LTS" literally has a definition in wikipedia: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support > > > > > >> > >> Stable 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and EoL 3.5 at the end of the year (1st of > Jan, > >> 2023)? > >> > >> Andor > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 2022. Feb 1., at 16:41, Patrick Hunt wrote: > >>> > >>> "LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. > JDK > >>> LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with > >> the > >>> stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in > >> terms > >>> of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. > >>> > >>> Patrick > >>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > >>> > Hi Andrew, > > I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, > just > my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper > (4 > years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to > be > honest I’m not participating in it. > > As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the > “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches > >> that > improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so > announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily > bad. > > As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I > think > the following could also be considered for the community: > > Now: > > master > -- > 3.7 > 3.6 > 3.5 LTS > -- > 3.4 EoL > > Can become: > > master > -- > 3.8 LTS > 3.7 > 3.5 LTS > -- > 3.6 EoL > 3.4 EoL > > In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. > > What do you think? > > Andor > > > > > On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell > >> wrote: > > > > Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, > but > > maybe I have misunderstood this response: > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell > >> ha > >> scritto: > >> > >>> Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a > Hadoop > >>> JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe > there > >>> have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) > >> release. > >>> > >>> A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > >>> untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a > timetable > >> to > >>> EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should > you > >>> decide to EOL it. > >> > >> > >> I am sorry, > >> I forgot about such conversation. > >> > >> Can you share some pointers ? > >> > >> No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 > and > that > >> is willing to help. > >> > >> Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to > >> compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect > >> to > new
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Hi Pat, Yeah, I asked for a more specific suggestion from you. If we avoid using the LTS in ZooKeeper releases and stay with the stable/latest labels, how would you label the current maintained versions? Enrico is about to release 3.8.0 soon, so we’ll end up having four versions in maintenance. What should we do with it to reduce the maintenance cost? Andor > On 2022. Feb 4., at 17:58, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:19 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > >> More specifically? >> > > Are you asking me? :-) "LTS" literally has a definition in wikipedia: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support > > >> >> Stable 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and EoL 3.5 at the end of the year (1st of Jan, >> 2023)? >> >> Andor >> >> >> >>> On 2022. Feb 1., at 16:41, Patrick Hunt wrote: >>> >>> "LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. JDK >>> LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with >> the >>> stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in >> terms >>> of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, just my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper (4 years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to be honest I’m not participating in it. As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches >> that improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily bad. As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I think the following could also be considered for the community: Now: master -- 3.7 3.6 3.5 LTS -- 3.4 EoL Can become: master -- 3.8 LTS 3.7 3.5 LTS -- 3.6 EoL 3.4 EoL In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. What do you think? Andor > On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell >> wrote: > > Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, but > maybe I have misunderstood this response: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > >> Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell >> ha >> scritto: >> >>> Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a Hadoop >>> JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe there >>> have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) >> release. >>> >>> A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS >>> untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a timetable >> to >>> EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you >>> decide to EOL it. >> >> >> I am sorry, >> I forgot about such conversation. >> >> Can you share some pointers ? >> >> No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and that >> is willing to help. >> >> Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to >> compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect >> to new >> servers (and vice versa) >> >> I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the community, >> so from your response I understand that there is such interest. >> >> Thanks for answering >> >> Enrico >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli >>> wrote: Hello, We are going to release 3.8.0. It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. Key points: - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if requested to upgrade to 3.6 Thoughts ? Enrico >>> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - > It's what we’ve earned > Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? > Bring us
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
That's what I was getting at with asking about phrasing like "long supported" or LTS. The expectation is months or years longer than typical. ZooKeeper code lines have typically been supported for really long times. It is a strength of this project, in my opinion. Those of us who have been around for a while, if we hear "LTS" from you, we think years and years... Christopher from Accumulo had a good suggestion. Whatever you decide, document it. Will help with communication. Probably best to avoid use of the term "LTS" unless you plan on keeping that version around for several years. On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:59 AM Patrick Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:19 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > > More specifically? > > > > Are you asking me? :-) "LTS" literally has a definition in wikipedia: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support > > > > > > Stable 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and EoL 3.5 at the end of the year (1st of Jan, > > 2023)? > > > > Andor > > > > > > > > > On 2022. Feb 1., at 16:41, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > > > > > "LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. > JDK > > > LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with > > the > > > stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in > > terms > > > of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Andrew, > > >> > > >> I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, > just > > >> my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper > (4 > > >> years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to > be > > >> honest I’m not participating in it. > > >> > > >> As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the > > >> “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches > > that > > >> improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so > > >> announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily > bad. > > >> > > >> As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I > think > > >> the following could also be considered for the community: > > >> > > >> Now: > > >> > > >> master > > >> -- > > >> 3.7 > > >> 3.6 > > >> 3.5 LTS > > >> -- > > >> 3.4 EoL > > >> > > >> Can become: > > >> > > >> master > > >> -- > > >> 3.8 LTS > > >> 3.7 > > >> 3.5 LTS > > >> -- > > >> 3.6 EoL > > >> 3.4 EoL > > >> > > >> In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> Andor > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, > but > > >>> maybe I have misunderstood this response: > > >>> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell > > ha > > scritto: > > > > > Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a > > >> Hadoop > > > JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe > > >> there > > > have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) > > release. > > > > > > A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > > > untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a > > >> timetable > > to > > > EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should > you > > > decide to EOL it. > > > > > > I am sorry, > > I forgot about such conversation. > > > > Can you share some pointers ? > > > > No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 > and > > >> that > > is willing to help. > > > > Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to > > compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect > > to > > >> new > > servers (and vice versa) > > > > I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the > > >> community, > > so from your response I understand that there is such interest. > > > > Thanks for answering > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hello, > > >> We are going to release 3.8.0. > > >> It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > > >> > > >> Key points: > > >> - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > > >> - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade > is
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:19 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > More specifically? > Are you asking me? :-) "LTS" literally has a definition in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support > > Stable 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and EoL 3.5 at the end of the year (1st of Jan, > 2023)? > > Andor > > > > > On 2022. Feb 1., at 16:41, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > > > "LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. JDK > > LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with > the > > stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in > terms > > of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. > > > > Patrick > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > > >> Hi Andrew, > >> > >> I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, just > >> my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper (4 > >> years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to be > >> honest I’m not participating in it. > >> > >> As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the > >> “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches > that > >> improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so > >> announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily bad. > >> > >> As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I think > >> the following could also be considered for the community: > >> > >> Now: > >> > >> master > >> -- > >> 3.7 > >> 3.6 > >> 3.5 LTS > >> -- > >> 3.4 EoL > >> > >> Can become: > >> > >> master > >> -- > >> 3.8 LTS > >> 3.7 > >> 3.5 LTS > >> -- > >> 3.6 EoL > >> 3.4 EoL > >> > >> In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Andor > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > >>> > >>> Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, but > >>> maybe I have misunderstood this response: > >>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli > >>> wrote: > >>> > Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell > ha > scritto: > > > Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a > >> Hadoop > > JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe > >> there > > have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) > release. > > > > A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > > untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a > >> timetable > to > > EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you > > decide to EOL it. > > > I am sorry, > I forgot about such conversation. > > Can you share some pointers ? > > No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and > >> that > is willing to help. > > Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to > compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect > to > >> new > servers (and vice versa) > > I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the > >> community, > so from your response I understand that there is such interest. > > Thanks for answering > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> We are going to release 3.8.0. > >> It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > >> > >> Key points: > >> - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > >> - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is > >> awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) > >> - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if > >> requested to upgrade to 3.6 > >> > >> Thoughts ? > >> > >> > >> Enrico > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best regards, > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - > >>> It's what we’ve earned > >>> Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? > >>> Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on > >>> - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse > >> > >> > >
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
More specifically? Stable 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and EoL 3.5 at the end of the year (1st of Jan, 2023)? Andor > On 2022. Feb 1., at 16:41, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > "LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. JDK > LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with the > stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in terms > of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. > > Patrick > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, just >> my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper (4 >> years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to be >> honest I’m not participating in it. >> >> As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the >> “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches that >> improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so >> announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily bad. >> >> As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I think >> the following could also be considered for the community: >> >> Now: >> >> master >> -- >> 3.7 >> 3.6 >> 3.5 LTS >> -- >> 3.4 EoL >> >> Can become: >> >> master >> -- >> 3.8 LTS >> 3.7 >> 3.5 LTS >> -- >> 3.6 EoL >> 3.4 EoL >> >> In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Andor >> >> >> >>> On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell wrote: >>> >>> Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, but >>> maybe I have misunderstood this response: >>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli >>> wrote: >>> Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell ha scritto: > Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a >> Hadoop > JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe >> there > have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) release. > > A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a >> timetable to > EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you > decide to EOL it. I am sorry, I forgot about such conversation. Can you share some pointers ? No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and >> that is willing to help. Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect to >> new servers (and vice versa) I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the >> community, so from your response I understand that there is such interest. Thanks for answering Enrico > > >> On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> We are going to release 3.8.0. >> It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. >> >> Key points: >> - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 >> - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is >> awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) >> - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if >> requested to upgrade to 3.6 >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> >> Enrico > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Andrew >>> >>> Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - >>> It's what we’ve earned >>> Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? >>> Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on >>> - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse >> >>
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
"LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. JDK LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with the stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in terms of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. Patrick On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, just > my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper (4 > years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to be > honest I’m not participating in it. > > As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the > “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches that > improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so > announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily bad. > > As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I think > the following could also be considered for the community: > > Now: > > master > -- > 3.7 > 3.6 > 3.5 LTS > -- > 3.4 EoL > > Can become: > > master > -- > 3.8 LTS > 3.7 > 3.5 LTS > -- > 3.6 EoL > 3.4 EoL > > In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. > > What do you think? > > Andor > > > > > On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > > Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, but > > maybe I have misunderstood this response: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli > > wrote: > > > >> Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell ha > >> scritto: > >> > >>> Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a > Hadoop > >>> JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe > there > >>> have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) > >> release. > >>> > >>> A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > >>> untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a > timetable > >> to > >>> EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you > >>> decide to EOL it. > >> > >> > >> I am sorry, > >> I forgot about such conversation. > >> > >> Can you share some pointers ? > >> > >> No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and > that > >> is willing to help. > >> > >> Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to > >> compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect to > new > >> servers (and vice versa) > >> > >> I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the > community, > >> so from your response I understand that there is such interest. > >> > >> Thanks for answering > >> > >> Enrico > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli > >>> wrote: > > Hello, > We are going to release 3.8.0. > It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > > Key points: > - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is > awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) > - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if > requested to upgrade to 3.6 > > Thoughts ? > > > Enrico > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > > > Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - > >It's what we’ve earned > > Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? > > Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on > > - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse > >
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Hi Andrew, I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, just my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper (4 years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to be honest I’m not participating in it. As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches that improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily bad. As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I think the following could also be considered for the community: Now: master -- 3.7 3.6 3.5 LTS -- 3.4 EoL Can become: master -- 3.8 LTS 3.7 3.5 LTS -- 3.6 EoL 3.4 EoL In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. What do you think? Andor > On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, but > maybe I have misunderstood this response: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > >> Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell ha >> scritto: >> >>> Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a Hadoop >>> JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe there >>> have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) >> release. >>> >>> A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS >>> untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a timetable >> to >>> EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you >>> decide to EOL it. >> >> >> I am sorry, >> I forgot about such conversation. >> >> Can you share some pointers ? >> >> No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and that >> is willing to help. >> >> Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to >> compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect to new >> servers (and vice versa) >> >> I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the community, >> so from your response I understand that there is such interest. >> >> Thanks for answering >> >> Enrico >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli >>> wrote: Hello, We are going to release 3.8.0. It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. Key points: - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if requested to upgrade to 3.6 Thoughts ? Enrico >>> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - >It's what we’ve earned > Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? > Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on > - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, but maybe I have misunderstood this response: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell ha > scritto: > > > Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a Hadoop > > JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe there > > have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) > release. > > > > A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > > untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a timetable > to > > EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you > > decide to EOL it. > > > I am sorry, > I forgot about such conversation. > > Can you share some pointers ? > > No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and that > is willing to help. > > Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to > compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect to new > servers (and vice versa) > > I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the community, > so from your response I understand that there is such interest. > > Thanks for answering > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > We are going to release 3.8.0. > > > It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > > > > > > Key points: > > > - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > > > - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is > > > awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) > > > - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if > > > requested to upgrade to 3.6 > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - It's what we’ve earned Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Apache Accumulo has gone through some similar discussions over the years. What we have come up with is https://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/versioning.html (We avoided "LTS", because we don't provide "support" in the commercial sense, instead using the term "LTM" for long-term maintenance to indicate our intent to maintain with patches, but it's essentially the same kind of thing) Basically, we: * define our API (https://accumulo.apache.org/api/) and use SemVer as much as possible * apply patches to at least 1, and at most 2, LTM releases at a time * EOL the previous LTM release a year after the next one is released, to give an entire year for people to transition while still receiving patches * non-LTM releases are effectively EOL immediately, but can be used as stepping stones to the next LTM release; it's not that they won't receive patches at all, but that patches will be rolled into the current development for the next release, rather than backported to that version This helps a lot with reducing the developer workload to maintain multiple branches, communicates our intent to patch, provides predictable update paths, and gives users the choice to hop from one LTM release to the next or to follow the non-LTM releases to adopt new features more quickly. If ZK 3.5 is considered an "LTS" release, and if ZK devs wanted to do something similar, I would recommend maybe marking 3.7 as the next "LTS" release, and EOL'ing 3.5 either 1 year from now, or 1 year from 3.7.0's release date (which is coming up in a few months). You could either make 3.6 an LTS release if you wanted to maintain 2-3 LTS releases at a time instead of 1-2 like Accumulo does. Or you could EOL 3.6 when you EOL 3.5, so you can focus on 3.7 as the current LTS. There's lots of options to go with, but something along these lines, documented, could be very useful for users and developers/contributors. On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:29 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell ha > scritto: > > > Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a Hadoop > > JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe there > > have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) > release. > > > > A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > > untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a timetable > to > > EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you > > decide to EOL it. > > > I am sorry, > I forgot about such conversation. > > Can you share some pointers ? > > No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and that > is willing to help. > > Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to > compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect to new > servers (and vice versa) > > I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the community, > so from your response I understand that there is such interest. > > Thanks for answering > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > We are going to release 3.8.0. > > > It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > > > > > > Key points: > > > - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > > > - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is > > > awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) > > > - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if > > > requested to upgrade to 3.6 > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > >
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell ha scritto: > Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a Hadoop > JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe there > have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) release. > > A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a timetable to > EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you > decide to EOL it. I am sorry, I forgot about such conversation. Can you share some pointers ? No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and that is willing to help. Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect to new servers (and vice versa) I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the community, so from your response I understand that there is such interest. Thanks for answering Enrico > > > > On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > We are going to release 3.8.0. > > It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > > > > Key points: > > - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > > - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is > > awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) > > - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if > > requested to upgrade to 3.6 > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > Enrico >
Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL
Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a Hadoop JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe there have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) release. A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a timetable to EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you decide to EOL it. > On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Hello, > We are going to release 3.8.0. > It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > > Key points: > - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is > awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) > - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if > requested to upgrade to 3.6 > > Thoughts ? > > > Enrico