Thanks Greg. Overall, this makes sense to me.
The only assumption on my side was, that we are actually pretty sure
that we will hit case (1) or (2)...
And I actually also thought, that completing the required KRaft work
would only take a few more weeks, and that is also why we have a 3.9
release branch already...
If there is so much uncertainty about finishing KRaft work, why did we
cut a 3.9 branch now, and have a dedicate release plan for it? Colin did
propose the release plan with the goal in mind to quickly do a release
after 3.8, which would contain the missing KRaft things.
If we might only release 3.9 in October/November, the current release
plan with kip/feature/code freeze deadlines does not make sense to me,
and we should not have a 3.9 release branch, and trunk should stay on
3.9-SNAPSHOT for the time being...
-Matthias
On 7/30/24 3:03 PM, Greg Harris wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to clarify my understanding of the path forward, the one I voted
for in KIP-1012 and what I understood to be the consensus in the 3.8.0
release thread.
1. If KIP-853 is feature-complete before October, Kafka 3.9 can be released
ASAP with KIP-853. There will be no 3.10 release, and 4.0 will follow 4
months after 3.9, no later than February.
2. If KIP-853 is feature complete in October, Kafka 3.9 should be released
in October as a normal release, with KIP-853. There will be no 3.10
release, and 4.0 will follow 4 months after 3.9, in February.
3. If KIP-853 is not feature complete in October, Kafka 3.9 should be
released in October as a normal release, without KIP-853. There will be a
3.10 release that may or may not contain KIP-853 no later than February.
As we are not sure which path will be taken, the most conservative strategy
is to bump to 3.10, and only after we know we're in case 1 or 2, bump the
version to 4.0 and skip 3.10.
If we leave the version bump to 4.0 in place, and later discover that we
are in case 3, it will be very damaging for the project, causing either a
big release delay, confusion for users, or unaddressed bugs.
Thanks,
Greg
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 2:14 PM Igor Soarez <i...@soarez.me> wrote:
My understanding was that the reason for the shorter cycle
to the 3.9 release was based on the assumption that KIP-1012
would be ready soon, so we could get to 4.0 quicker.
If we can't move to 4.0 sooner, what's to gain with an early 3.9?
--
Igor
