By the way, would someone formally describe what is meant by the "re-config feature"?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:14 PM, 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. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> > >
