Thanks, Dave for sharing your views. I entirely agree. -Lari
On 2022/10/08 01:41:47 Dave Fisher wrote: > To me the point of this discussion is for the community to discuss both > improvement ideas along with current pain points in the broker. Whether or > not the ideas and proposed solutions are breaking or incremental is yet to be > determined. Let’s not get hung up on versions or nomenclature. > > All the best, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Oct 7, 2022, at 5:54 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I actually disagree with the term "Pulsar Next Gen", because I haven't > > seen any proposal for which that would make sense to me to be called > > so. > > > > Rajan: That's the whole point of breaking it down. If you accumulate > > many "big" changes it introduces a lot of risk for instabilities and > > incompatibilities. Breaking it down in multiple steps helps to see the > > incremental changes and introduced them in a phased manner. > > > > > > -- > > Matteo Merli > > <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > > > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 3:37 PM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Can we get the list of changes at one place which we are planning to get as > >> part of 3.0. One thing I would like to see as a part of a major release, it > >> CAN NOT impact existing usecases and users in any way which can force them > >> to upgrade the client library. Applications using < 3.0 version should > >> continue getting all the client and server side enhancements and bug fixes. > >> Failing to provide bug-fixes and features to client < 3.0 means we are > >> forcing them to upgrade client version by putting efforts to handle all > >> incompatibility. and that's something we should definitely prevent because > >> Apache Pulsar is used by many large scale business usecases and we should > >> accommodate and motivate them to continue using Apache Pulsar. > >> I understand as a Pulsar community we should always try to progress and > >> build better but not at the cost of losing or reducing the Apache Pulsar > >> community. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Rajan > >> > >> > >>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:41 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thank you, Matteo. I agree that features should be delivered continuously > >>> when that is possible. In this case, that might not apply. > >>> > >>> I also agree that calling this Pulsar 3.0 isn't necessarily aligned with > >>> PIP-175 since an LTS release is when the major version is bumped. I'm fine > >>> in calling this "Pulsar Next Gen" or something that calls out that this is > >>> planning for making a major leap in Pulsar. > >>> > >>> There are several unresolved issues with PIP-45 and the Pulsar Load > >>> balancer. The previously referred email threads contain a lot of context > >>> to > >>> this. Resolving the issues efficiently will most likely result in breaking > >>> changes, which will be the reason why it deserves a major version upgrade. > >>> > >>> We have discussed it before that it's crucial to have a path to migrate > >>> users when there are breaking changes. This should be covered in any of > >>> the > >>> solutions that are introduced. Optimally, users of Pulsar would be able to > >>> upgrade seamlessly to Pulsar Next Gen / Pulsar 3.0, but rolling back might > >>> not be directly supported. > >>> > >>> I am welcoming everyone to join this planning for the Apache Pulsar Next > >>> Gen architecture. Please check the first email in this thread for details > >>> of context, and start participating and contributing today. The best way > >>> to > >>> contribute is to participate in the email threads, since they contain > >>> details with better context. > >>> > >>> -Lari > >>> > >>> On 2022/10/07 18:03:00 Matteo Merli wrote: > >>>> Given the past experiences and the discussions that already happened > >>>> around "PIP-175: Extend time based release process", the idea is to > >>>> detach the 3.0 from "big-features" items or "incompatible changes". > >>>> > >>>> The changes are going to get included as they are ready, within > >>>> feature releases, and in a fully compatible way. We don't need to > >>>> group them together and create unnecessary risk for the release > >>>> schedule and the users. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Matteo Merli > >>>> <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 10:47 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> Greeting from ApacheCon North America 2022 from New Orleans! > >>>>> We had a great conference with a dedicated Pulsar track. Thanks to all > >>> presenters and everyone who attended. The talks weren't recorded, but the > >>> slides will be later on posted on the conference website [1]. > >>>>> > >>>>> At ApacheCon there were several presentations about "the Apache way" > >>> and what that means in practice. Based on that, we all know that no person > >>> is nominated as the CTO of Apache Pulsar who decides on Pulsar 3.0 and > >>> when > >>> that happens. It's us, the community, that serve that role together. We > >>> come together as individuals with the Apache hat on. Everyone is equal in > >>> the community, regardless of whether they are contributors, committers or > >>> PMC members. > >>>>> We welcome everyone to participate. The small detail about voting > >>> shouldn't stop anyone from participating in any aspects of the planning > >>> for > >>> the roadmap. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'll like to get the discussions going for Pulsar 3.0. We don't need a > >>> separate decision to start planning that. Please correct me if I'm wrong > >>> or > >>> if you have a different opinion. > >>>>> > >>>>> There are a few previous discussion threads that are related to Pulsar > >>> 3.0 planning. > >>>>> If you are interested in getting involved with Apache Pulsar 3.0 > >>> planning, I think that it makes sense for you to read these threads > >>> carefully and reply to them. Please also suggest what you think makes > >>> sense. > >>>>> > >>>>> PIP-45 related: > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/tvco1orf0hsyt59pjtfbwoq0vf6hfrcj > >>>>> Pulsar Load balancer / namespace bundle related: > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/roohoc9h2gthvmd7t81do4hfjs2gphpk > >>>>> renaming topics: > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/vrr75rrh4trqlp14objh3snlfvmzdrp2 > >>>>> backpressure: > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/v7xy57qfzbhopoqbm75s6ng8xlhbr2q6 > >>>>> > >>>>> Long list of Metadata inconsistency issues by Zac Bentley: > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12555 > >>>>> That would be a good starting point to understanding the data > >>> inconsistency issues related to current PIP-45 design. Perhaps those could > >>> be addressed already before Pulsar 3.0? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm looking forward to everyone's participation in the Apache Pulsar > >>> 3.0 planning discussions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> -Lari > >>>>> > >>>>> 1 - https://www.apachecon.com/acna2022/schedule.html > >>>> > >>> >
