PengHui, Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8. > > Agree. We should clarify this one. > I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7 > and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release) > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the > release strategy clear. > > LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12) > Feature release -> 6 months (3+3) > > Thanks, > Penghui > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning > > to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem > > worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8. > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no? > > > We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11. > > > If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new > > > regressions > > > will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0 > > > release.
I am not sure. I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch more than the master branch. On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my colleagues on branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch. I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not branched again from the master branch we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is released Many people contributed features to the master branch that cannot be shipped with 2.11 because they are considered "breaking changes". But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 months ago. Enrico > > > > > > IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966) > > > after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months. > > > > > > For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > > I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now. > > > Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that > > > case. > > > We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar. > > > > > > Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since > > 4.15.2 > > > has regressions [1] > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Penghui > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes > > > > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master. > > > > > > > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch > > > > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3 > > > > months. > > > > > > > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR > > > > tags and milestones to prevent confusion. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello Pulsar fellows, > > > > > > > > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11. > > > > > > > > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one. > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch, > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11 > > > > > and start with something that is already stale. > > > > > > > > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the > > > > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before > > cutting > > > > > the release. > > > > > > > > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or > > fixed > > > > > or closed as "not a problem": > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > > > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you > > > > > created the issue. > > > > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar. > > > > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more > > > > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is > > > > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a > > > > > third party project and only in some private QA environment. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning > > to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem > > worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8. > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no? > > > We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11. > > > If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new > > > regressions > > > will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0 > > > release. > > > > > > IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966) > > > after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months. > > > > > > For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > > I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now. > > > Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that > > > case. > > > We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar. > > > > > > Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since > > 4.15.2 > > > has regressions [1] > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Penghui > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes > > > > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master. > > > > > > > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch > > > > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3 > > > > months. > > > > > > > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR > > > > tags and milestones to prevent confusion. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello Pulsar fellows, > > > > > > > > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11. > > > > > > > > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one. > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch, > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11 > > > > > and start with something that is already stale. > > > > > > > > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the > > > > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before > > cutting > > > > > the release. > > > > > > > > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or > > fixed > > > > > or closed as "not a problem": > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > > > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you > > > > > created the issue. > > > > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar. > > > > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more > > > > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is > > > > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a > > > > > third party project and only in some private QA environment. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > >
