Thank you, Matteo. I'm just adding that it all makes sense that what you said.
I hope that my other email clarified the need to get loose of any restrictions for a while in the planning of Pulsar 3.0. Making the changes a reality is something where the practice of incremental changes that you have introduced to Pulsar development will continue to be essential. This might need more clarification, but I think that we will be able to resolve it when it becomes current. -Lari On 2022/10/07 22:53:59 Matteo Merli 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 > > > > > > > >
