This is a pretty standard way, I'd say, of hiding new function until it is stable. I think it is a good idea.
Chris From: Flavio P JUNQUEIRA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 03/16/2016 04:10 PM Subject: Re: Zookeeper with SSL release date I suppose we could give it a try. How do other folks feel about it? -Flavio On 16 Mar 2016 19:52, "Jason Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote: > So, you could enable the dynamic reconfiguration feature behind a config > option, and document that it should only be enabled experimentally, use at > your own risk. Keep it off by default. Allow only static config by > default, until it's stable? > > Jason > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Jason, > > > > The consumer in Kafka is pretty independent from the core (brokers), > > that's how that project manages to make such a separation. We don't have > > the same with ZooKeeper as the feature we are talking about is part of > the > > server and the only way I see of doing what you say is to turn off > > features. More specifically, we'd need to disable the reconfig API and do > > not allow any change to the configuration, even though the code is there. > > > > Reconfig here refers to the ability of changing the configuration of an > > ensemble (e.g., changing the set of servers). > > > > -Flavio > > > > > On 16 Mar 2016, at 19:14, Jason Rosenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So, it would seem sensible to me to have a release where all features > are > > > stable, except where noted. E.g. mark certain features as only 'alpha > > > quality', e.g. the 're-config feature'. (I assume it's possible to > > happily > > > use 3.5.X without exercising the unstable re-config bits?). > > > > > > There's precedent for doing this sort of thing in other projects, e.g. > in > > > Kafka, they've had several release where a new "Consumer API" is > shipped > > > that is available for beta-testing, but you can still just use the > older > > > stable consumer api, etc. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, powell molleti > > <[email protected] > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Doug, > > >> Is 3.5 being an alpha release preventing you from using it?. Or have > you > > >> run into issues with it?. In general perhaps ZK 3.5 being labeled as > > alpha > > >> might not be fair, since it is far more stable then what most people > > >> associate an alpha release to be. > > >> Perhaps if you do not use re-config feature may be it will just work > for > > >> you?. > > >> There are many examples of 3.5.X being used in productions from my > > limited > > >> knowledge. > > >> ThanksPowell. > > >> > > >> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:44 AM, Flavio Junqueira < > > [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> None of us expected the reconfig changes to take this long to > stabilize. > > >> Until we get there, I don't think we can do anything else with 3.5. > The > > >> best bet we have is to work harder to bring 3.5 into a stable rather > > than > > >> trying to work around it. > > >> > > >> There are lots of people interested in seeing 3.5 stable, and if we > get > > >> everyone to contribute more patches and code reviews, we should be > able > > to > > >> do it sooner. After all, it is a community based effort, so the > > community > > >> shouldn't rely on just 2-3 people doing the work. > > >> > > >> -Flavio > > >> > > >>> On 15 Mar 2016, at 17:28, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Doug, I forgot to respond to your question about 3.4. Since 3.4 is > the > > >>> stable maintenance line, we are very conservative about back-porting > to > > >>> it. Our policy is to limit back-ports to critical bug fixes and not > > >>> introduce any new features in the 3.4 line. This is a matter of > > managing > > >>> risk. > > >>> > > >>> Jason, your question about release cadence is a fair one. If it's > any > > >>> consolation, we are now taking the approach of trying to limit the > > scope > > >>> of anything new introduced in 3.5 too. That would allow us to focus > on > > >>> stabilization: resolving blocker bugs and freezing public APIs. I > > think > > >>> this will help us accelerate the releases into beta and eventual GA. > > >>> > > >>> I am new to ZooKeeper release management, so I'd like to hear > thoughts > > >>> from more experienced committers and PMC members about your proposal > to > > >>> try to cut a stable release for a limited subset of what is in > > branch-3.5 > > >>> now. My instinct is that it would be challenging to cherry-pick out > > >>> pieces of branch-3.5 piecemeal at this point. This would become > > another > > >>> release line for an already resource-constrained volunteer staff to > > >>> manage. I'd prefer to dedicate those limited resources to overall > 3.5 > > >>> stabilization. Also, a 3.5 release in which certain features > > "vanished" > > >>> because of not meeting some stability criteria would be undesirable. > > >>> > > >>> --Chris Nauroth > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 3/15/16, 10:12 AM, "Jason Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Chris, > > >>>> > > >>>> Can you say whether some parts of 3.5.X are more stable than others > > >> (e.g. > > >>>> if we don't care about certain new features, is it relatively > stable)? > > >>>> Would it be possible to cut out a version that only has the bits we > > >> think > > >>>> are stable (and release that)? > > >>>> > > >>>> From that timeline, and the historic release cadence, it would seem > to > > >> be > > >>>> a > > >>>> years away before we get to the stable release? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> > > >>>> Jason > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Chris Nauroth < > > >> [email protected]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hello Doug, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks for your interest in the SSL feature! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> At this point, I think we're still pretty far away from declaring a > > >>>>> stable > > >>>>> release in the 3.5 line. I don't think we're close enough that > > anyone > > >>>>> can > > >>>>> offer a reliable ETA. This is an earlier thread that describes the > > >>>>> high-level strategy for release planning in the 3.5 line: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://s.apache.org/ADK1 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The next step is a 3.5.2-alpha release. We're working on > resolving a > > >>>>> few > > >>>>> more blockers before we produce a release candidate. Hopefully > that > > >>>>> will > > >>>>> get done in the next few weeks. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> --Chris Nauroth > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 3/15/16, 9:39 AM, "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I know it's only been a few months, but I was wondering if there > > was a > > >>>>>> ballpark release date for a stable version of 3.5.1. Or is there > any > > >>>>>> chance > > >>>>>> the SSL feature would be added to 3.4.8? Just another person > looking > > >> to > > >>>>>> have > > >>>>>> that feature in a stable version. Thanks for all you do! :) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> View this message in context: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > > http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Zookeeper-with-SSL-release-dat > > >>>>> e > > >>>>>> -tp7581744p7582136.html > > >>>>>> Sent from the zookeeper-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
