> 3.0.0 means "breaking changes" PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the exact wording:
> The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms of > "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes. > Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release. However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote. - Michael [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen > <chenh...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master, > > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according to > > the new release plan [1]. > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes" > current master is 100% compatible > > Enrico > > > > > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will wait at > > least three months before we cut 3.0.0. > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 > > > > Thanks, > > Hang > > > > guo jiwei <techno...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道： > > > > > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to 2.11 > > > today. > > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off the > > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > Tboy > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Inline > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking 2.11 > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that there are > > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases. > > > > > > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11 before we > > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will give us > > > > time to > > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x to 2.12.x > > > > … > > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced today took > > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5 to > > > > 2.10.2. > > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar releases helps > > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >
