Hi all Since no more arguments, I merged the PR
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 5:05 PM Yubiao Feng <yubiao.f...@streamnative.io> wrote: > Hi Lari > > > Let's start making progress: > > - keep PR 9292 as default > > - implement PR 23759 without changing the PR 9292 default > > - write a proper upgrade guide for Pulsar 4.0 where rollback > > considerations are explained > > Makes sense? > > I do not think that it makes sense to me, there is no discussion to > announce the feature before, and users never realized it in any doc so far. > > Thanks > Yubiao Feng > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 3:56 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 09:26, Baodi Shi <ba...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > hi, @lari and @enrico thanks for discuss. >> > >> > Yes, I agree that PR 9292 is a useful feature. >> > >> > >> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#compatibility-between-releases >> > >> > When I look at our compatibility strategy, what we promised is >> > compatibility from 3.0 -> 4.0 -> 3.0. >> > >> > Note that when the documentation mentions 3.0 and 4.0, I understand >> > that they are the latest versions of 3.0 and 4.0, not the earlier >> > ones. >> > >> > We need to ensure this, right? >> >> When we say there's support for downgrading (rollback), it doesn't >> mean users don't need to take any action. >> >> We ensure downgrade compatibility by providing an upgrade guide that >> explains how to configure the system to allow rollbacks without losing >> state information. If we didn't do this, we'd always be stuck in the >> same situation whenever a new LTS version comes out. >> >> Let's start making progress: >> - keep PR 9292 as default >> - implement PR 23759 without changing the PR 9292 default >> - write a proper upgrade guide for Pulsar 4.0 where rollback >> considerations are explained >> >> Makes sense? >> >> >> -Lari >> >
