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. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > >
