Bumping this up. I cannot be the only one confused by these questions. Pulsar is at a stage where users have to constantly upgrade due to stability or feature needs. The answers to the questions I am asking should help everyone planning upgrades from 2.x to 3.x and other combinations.
Regards On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 6:31 PM Girish Sharma <scrapmachi...@gmail.com> wrote: > There have been a few discussions in the past on the slack channel and I > recently also started a similar thread [0] regarding if we can skip certain > releases while upgrading towards pulsar 3.0 and beyond. Starting this dev > mailing list discussion to get some more input. > > As per official release policy [1] itself, there are some open questions: > > *Before 3.0, upgrade should be done linearly through each feature version. >> For example, when upgrading from 2.8 to 2.10, it is important to upgrade to >> 2.9 before going to 2.10. * >> > > This is a very clear statement. Although lengthy, it makes sense to limit > the scope of OSS to test upgrades from and to every version. > > *Starting from 3.0, additionally, live upgrade/downgrade between one LTS >> and the next one is guaranteed. For example, * >> > > What does this exactly entail? Does it only mean that I can do 3.0.x <-> > 4.0.x ? The example just below is misleading from that perspective > > >> >> >> *3.0 -> 4.0 -> 3.0 is OK; 3.2 -> 4.0 -> 3.2 is OK; 3.2 -> 4.4 -> >> 3.2 is OK; 3.2 -> 5.0 is not OK.* > > > This seems to give a feeling that it is possible to upgrade from any 3.x > version to any 3.x or 4.x version including rollbacks. Are we testing this > as new 3.x versions release? > > To add to the confusion, the blog post [2] of 3.2 release mentions this > > *For the 3.2 series, you should be able to upgrade from version 3.1 or >> downgrade from the subsequently released version 3.3. If you are currently >> using an earlier version, please ensure that you upgrade to version 3.1 >> before proceeding further.* > > > This is confusing now. So 3.2 -> 4.0 would be possible but 3.0 -> 3.2 > isn't? Why is 3.2 -> 4.4 possible then? > > Wish to see the community's take on this in order to align the > recommendation. > > [0] https://apache-pulsar.slack.com/archives/C5Z4T36F7/p1705392242948349 > [1] > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#compatibility-between-releases > [2] > https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2024/02/12/announcing-apache-pulsar-3-2/ > > -- > Girish Sharma > -- Girish Sharma
