Hey All, It sounds like the general consensus is in favor of time-based releases. We can continue the discussion about LTS, but I wanted to go ahead and get things moving forward by volunteering to manage the next release, which is currently slated for October. If that sounds OK, I'll draft a release plan and send it out to the community for feedback and a vote.
Thanks, Jason On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Ofir Manor <ofir.ma...@equalum.io> wrote: > I happily agree that Kafka is a solid and the community is great :) > But I think there is a gap in perception here. > For me, LTS means that someone is actively taking care of a release - > actively backporting critical fixes (security, stability, data loss, > corruption, hangs etc) from trunk to that LTS version periodically for an > extended period of time, for example 18-36 months... So people can really > rely on the same Kafka version for a long time. > Is someone doing it today for 0.9.0? When is 0.9.0.2 expected? When is > 0.8.2.3 expected? Will they cover all known critical issues for whoever > relies on them in production? > In other words, what is the scope of support that the community want to > commit for older versions? (upgrade compatibility? investigating bug > reports? proactively backporting fixes?) > BTW, another legit option is that the Apache Kafka project won't commit to > LTS releases. It could let commercial vendors compete on supporting very > old versions. I find that actually quite reasonable as well. > > Ofir Manor > > Co-Founder & CTO | Equalum > > Mobile: +972-54-7801286 | Email: ofir.ma...@equalum.io > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Andrew Schofield < > andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > I agree that the Kafka community has managed to maintain a very high > > quality level, so I'm not concerned > > about the quality of non-LTS releases. If the principle is that every > > release is supported for 2 years, that > > would be good. I suppose that if the burden of having that many > in-support > > releases proves too heavy, > > as you say we could reconsider. > > > > Andrew Schofield > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > From: g...@confluent.io > > > Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:57:30 -0700 > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Time-based releases for Apache Kafka > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > > > > > I prefer Ismael's suggestion for supporting 2-years (6 releases) > > > rather than have designated LTS releases. > > > > > > The LTS model seems to work well when some releases are high quality > > > (LTS) and the rest are a bit more questionable. It is great for > > > companies like Redhat, where they have to invest less to support few > > > releases and let the community deal with everything else. > > > > > > Until now the Kafka community has managed to maintain very high > > > quality level. Not just for releases, our trunk is often of better > > > quality than other project's releases - we don't think of stability as > > > something you tuck into a release (and just some releases) but rather > > > as an on-going concern. There are costs to doing things that way, but > > > in general, I think it has served us well - allowing even conservative > > > companies to run on the latest released version. > > > > > > I hope we can agree to at least try maintaining last 6 releases as LTS > > > (i.e. every single release is supported for 2 years) rather than > > > designate some releases as better than others. Of course, if this > > > totally fails, we can reconsider. > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Andrew Schofield > > > <andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > > >> The proposal sounds pretty good, but the main thing currently missing > > is a proper long-term support release. > > >> > > >> Having 3 releases a year sounds OK, but if they're all equivalent and > > bugfix releases are produced for the most > > >> recent 2 or 3 releases, anyone wanting to run on an "in support" > > release of Kafka has to upgrade every 8-12 months. > > >> If you don't actually want anything specific from the newer releases, > > it's just unnecessary churn. > > >> > > >> Wouldn't it be better to designate one release every 12-18 months as a > > long-term support release with bugfix releases > > >> produced for those for a longer period of say 24 months. That halves > > the upgrade work for people just wanting to keep > > >> "in support". Now that adoption is increasing, there are plenty of > > users that just want a dependable messaging system > > >> without having to be deeply knowledgeable about its innards. > > >> > > >> LTS works nicely for plenty of open-source projects. I think it would > > work well for Kafka too. > > >> > > >> Andrew Schofield > > >> > > >> ---------------------------------------- > > >>> From: ofir.ma...@equalum.io > > >>> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:07:07 +0300 > > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Time-based releases for Apache Kafka > > >>> To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > >>> > > >>> Regarding bug fixes, you may want to consider to have an LTS release > > once a > > >>> year - designating it for longer-term support / better for the > masses. > > >>> If you like that - then fix bugs in trunk, backport important ones to > > >>> latest release + the last two LTS releases. > > >>> Even if you don't - if a downstream distribution picks a Kafka > version > > and > > >>> plans to support it over a few years, it could be nice of them to > "own" > > >>> that older release - volunteer to be a release manager for bug > > backports to > > >>> that version over a longer period... > > >>> Just my two cents :) > > >>> > > >>> Ofir Manor > > >>> > > >>> Co-Founder & CTO | Equalum > > >>> > > >>> Mobile: +972-54-7801286 | Email: ofir.ma...@equalum.io > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Thanks for putting this together Gwen. I think it sounds reasonable > > and > > >>>> instead of trying to optimise every aspect of it ahead of time > (which > > is > > >>>> hard, subjective and time-consuming), I am happy to try what is > being > > >>>> proposed and tweak based on experience. One thing we should pay > > particular > > >>>> attention to is how the stabilisation process works out in practice. > > >>>> > > >>>> A couple of comments: > > >>>> > > >>>> "Given 3 releases a year and the fact that no one upgrades three > > times a > > >>>> year, we propose making sure (by testing!) that rolling upgrade can > > be done > > >>>> from each release in the past year (i.e. last 3 releases) to the > > latest > > >>>> version." > > >>>> > > >>>> Because the cost of doing this for a larger number of releases is > > >>>> relatively low, I still think we should go for 6 here (our code > > currently > > >>>> supports 5 versions as I said in a previous message, so we're close > > to that > > >>>> target already). I'm generally very keen to make upgrades as easy as > > >>>> possible so that people have no reason not to upgrade. :) > > >>>> > > >>>> "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as > needed > > for > > >>>> the last 3 releases." > > >>>> > > >>>> I would suggest 2, personally, but since this is a bit fuzzy, I am > OK > > with > > >>>> 3 if people prefer that. > > >>>> > > >>>> Ismael > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Team Kafka, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As per the KIP meeting, I created a wiki: > > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Time+ > > >>>> Based+Release+Plan > > >>>>> Summarizing most of the discussion so far. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Comments and additional discussion is welcome :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Gwen > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Vahid S Hashemian > > >>>>> <vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> Time-based releases is a good idea and something that has proved > to > > be > > >>>>>> working in a number of open source projects. One successful > example > > is > > >>>>>> Node.js, that goes through two major releases a year. The > > interesting > > >>>>> fact > > >>>>>> about the two releases is that only one (the even-number release) > > comes > > >>>>>> with a long term support (LTS) plan (30 months). More can be read > > here: > > >>>>>> https://github.com/nodejs/LTS. The odd-number releases still come > > with > > >>>>>> major changes and help build the ecosystem, but as far as LTS > goes, > > >>>> there > > >>>>>> is only one per year. This LTS plan makes most enterprises want to > > >>>> stick > > >>>>>> to even-number releases, which is okay since frequent upgrades is > > not > > >>>>>> something they are normally interested in anyway. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> There could be several minor releases (non-breaking) in between > > major > > >>>>>> releases. A major release contains all the features / bug fixes in > > the > > >>>>>> master branch a month before the release date, with the potential > > >>>>> addition > > >>>>>> of (non-breaking) bug fixes until the release day. The deprecation > > >>>> cycle > > >>>>>> is one major release: any functionality that is decided to be > > removed > > >>>> is > > >>>>>> deprecated in the next major release, and removed in the major > > release > > >>>>>> after that. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Because of the success of LTS models in this and other open source > > >>>>>> projects, I would suggest implementing a formal LTS plan for Kafka > > too. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>> --Vahid > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> From: Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > > >>>>>> To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > >>>>>> Date: 08/09/2016 04:49 PM > > >>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Time-based releases for Apache Kafka > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Dear Kafka Developers and Users, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> In the past, our releases have been quite unpredictable. We'll > > notice > > >>>>>> that a large number of nice features made it in (or are close), > > >>>>>> someone would suggest a release and we'd do it. This is fun, but > > makes > > >>>>>> planning really hard - we saw it during the last release which we > > >>>>>> decided to delay by a few weeks to allow more features to "land". > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Many other communities have adopted time-based releases > successfully > > >>>>>> (Cassandra, GCC, LLVM, Fedora, Gnome, Ubuntu, etc.). And I thought > > it > > >>>>>> will make sense for the Apache Kafka community to try doing the > > same. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The benefits of this approach are: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. A quicker feedback cycle and users can benefit from features > > >>>>>> quicker (assuming for reasonably short time between releases - I > was > > >>>>>> thinking 4 months) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 2. Predictability for contributors and users: > > >>>>>> * Developers and reviewers can decide in advance what release they > > are > > >>>>>> aiming for with specific features. > > >>>>>> * If a feature misses a release we have a good idea of when it > will > > >>>> show > > >>>>>> up. > > >>>>>> * Users know when to expect their features > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 3. Transparency - There will be a published cut-off date (AKA > > feature > > >>>>>> freeze) for the release and people will know about it in advance. > > >>>>>> Hopefully this will remove the contention around which features > make > > >>>>>> it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 4. Quality - we've seen issues pop up in release candidates due to > > >>>>>> last-minute features that didn't have proper time to bake in. More > > >>>>>> time between feature freeze and release will let us test more, > > >>>>>> document more and resolve more issues. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Since nothing is ever perfect, there will be some downsides: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. Most notably, features that miss the feature-freeze date for a > > >>>>>> release will have to wait few month for the next release. Features > > >>>>>> will reach users faster overall as per benefit #1, but individual > > >>>>>> features that just miss the cut will lose out > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 2. More releases a year mean that being a committer is more work - > > >>>>>> release management is still some headache and we'll have more of > > >>>>>> those. Hopefully we'll get better at it. Also, the committer list > is > > >>>>>> growing and hopefully it will be less than once-a-year effort for > > each > > >>>>>> committer. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 3. For users, figuring out which release to use and having > frequent > > >>>>>> new releases to upgrade to may be a bit confusing. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 4. Frequent releases mean we need to do bugfix releases for older > > >>>>>> branches. Right now we only do bugfix releases to latest release. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Or at least suggest > > that > > >>>>>> its worth trying - we can have another discussion in few releases > to > > >>>>>> see if we want to keep it that way or try something else. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> My suggestion for the process: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. We decide on a reasonable release cadence > > >>>>>> 2. We decide on release dates (even rough estimate such as "end of > > >>>>>> February" or something) and work back feature freeze dates. > > >>>>>> 3. Committers volunteer to be "release managers" for specific > > >>>>>> releases. We can coordinate on the list or on a wiki. If no > > committer > > >>>>>> volunteers, we assume the community doesn't need a release and > skip > > >>>>>> it. > > >>>>>> 4. At the "feature freeze" date, the release manager announces the > > >>>>>> contents of the release (which KIPs made it in on time), creates > the > > >>>>>> release branch and starts the release process as usual. From this > > >>>>>> point onwards, only bug fixes should be double-committed to the > > >>>>>> release branch while trunk can start collecting features for the > > >>>>>> subsequent release. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Comments and improvements are appreciated. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Gwen Shapira > > >>>>>> Former-release-manager > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Gwen Shapira > > >>>>> Product Manager | Confluent > > >>>>> 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > >>>>> Follow us: Twitter | blog > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gwen Shapira > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > > >
