On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 13:19, Justine Olshan wrote: > Hey all, > > I was wondering how often we plan to update LATEST_PRODUCTION metadata > version. Is this something we should do as soon as the feature is complete > or something we do when we are releasing kafka. When is the time we abandon > a MV so that other features can be unblocked?
Hi Justine, Thanks for reviewing. The idea is that you should bump LATEST_PRODUCTION when you want to take a feature to production. That could mean deploying it internally somewhere to production, or doing an Apache release that lets everyone deploy the thing to production. Not in production? No need to care about this. Make any changes you like. As a corollary, we should keep the LATEST_PRODUCTION version as low as it can be. If you haven't tested the feature, don't freeze it in stone yet. > > I am just considering a feature that may end up missing a release. It seems > like maybe that MV would block future metadata versions until we decide the > feature won't make the cut. From that point, all "ready" features should be > able to be released. The intention is the opposite. A feature in an unstable metadata version doesn't block anything. You can always move a feature from one unstable metadata version to another if the feature starts taking too long to finish. > I'm also wondering if the KIP should include some information about how a > metadata should be abandoned. Maybe there is a specific message to write in > the file? So folks who were maybe waiting on that version know they can > release their feature? > > I am also assuming that we don't shift all the waiting metadata versions > when we abandon a version, but it would be good to clarify and include in > the KIP. I'm not sure what you mean by abandoning a version. We never abandon a version once it's stable. Unstable versions can change. I wouldn't describe this as "abandonment", just the MV changing prior to release. In a similar way, the contents of the 3.7 branch will change up until 3.7.0 is released. Once it gets released, it's never unreleased. We just move on to 3.7.1. Same thing here. best, Colin > > Thanks, > > Justine > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:44 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi Proven, >> >> Thanks for the KIP. I think there is a need for this capability, for those >> of us who deploy from trunk (or branches dervied from trunk). >> >> With regard to "unstable.metadata.versions.enable": is this going to be a >> documented configuration, or an internal one? I am guessing we want it to >> be documented, so that users can use it. If we do, we should probably also >> very prominently warn that THIS WILL BREAK UPGRADES FOR YOUR CLUSTER. That >> includes logging an ERROR message on startup, etc. >> >> It would be good to document if a release can go out that contains "future >> MVs" that are unstable. Like can we make a 3.8 release that contains >> IBP_4_0_IV0 in MetadataVersion.java, as an unstable future MV? Personally I >> think the answer should be "yes," but with the usual caveats. When the >> actual 4.0 comes out, the unstable 4.0 MV that shipped in 3.8 probably >> won't work, and you won't be able to upgrade. (It was unstable, we told you >> not to use it.) >> >> best, >> Colin >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 07:32, Proven Provenzano wrote: >> > Hey folks, >> > >> > I am starting a discussion thread for managing unstable metadata >> > versions >> > in Apache Kafka. >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1014%3A+Managing+Unstable+Metadata+Versions+in+Apache+Kafka >> > >> > This KIP is actually already implemented in 3.7 with PR >> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14860. >> > I have created this KIP to explain the motivation and how managing >> Metadata >> > Versions is expected to work. >> > Comments are greatly appreciated as this process can always be improved. >> > >> > -- >> > --Proven >>
