I am worried that creating a "good opportunity to do some cleanup" with a 3.0 LTM will only push the release back further and create a larger gap between LTM releases. The jump from 1.10 to 2.X is already challenging enough for users. Also, 4 of the large changes Ed mentioned have yet to be completed or merged: o Changes in the storage of properties in ZooKeeper to reduce watchers (in progress, issues #1225, #1809) o Change tracing to use OpenTracing instead of HTrace (PR #2259) o Change metrics to use micrometer.io instead of Hadoop-metrics2 (PR #2305) o Changes to enable per-table encryption and other improvements (PR #2197)
Some of these changes could go in the next version. We could have a release of 2.1 LTM now to include all the changes since 2.0 was released. I don't like the idea of users having to go from 1.10 to a 3.0 version, skipping a major version and never releasing a 2.x LTM version. I think having a 2.1 release now might make it easier for users going forward and give all the new features in 2.X an opportunity to be hardened in bug fix releases. Accumulo has yet to do a release in 2021. Also, if we do find a change with the Master to manager rename that creates an incompatibility it may not be that difficult to just revert that change for a 2.1 release. On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 1:36 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > We wouldn't *have* to remove additional deprecations if we did name it > 3.0, but it might be a good opportunity to do some cleanup for some > stuff that deprecated prior to 2.0, but left in there to ease the > transition to 2.0. Then again, removing anything else might make the > transition from 1.10 LTM to 3.0 LTM more challenging. > > Unless we find a clear compatibility issue in our public API that > forces us to bump to 3.0 because of semver, I'd be okay with either > version, so long as we make a decision. I do think the substantial > metrics/property name/tracing changes are compelling reasons to go to > 3.0, because even if they don't cause problems with our public API, > the changes may still cause headaches for sysadmins. > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:16 PM Ed Coleman <edcole...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I stared a general thread concerning topics for the next release. One > major topic raised was what should the next version number be? I stared > this thread so that version discussions can occur in a single thread for > continuity. From the general email thread: > > > > Version number: There have been substantial changes since 2.0 was > released. The next version was expected to be 2.1, but with the number > and the scope of changes that have been made and some that are in the > pipeline, maybe we should signal this with a major version bump to 3.0? > > > > - With semver, we might be able to go either way, depending on > interpretation. > > - With the adoption of LTM releases, whatever the next version is > numbered, it will be a LTM release candidate. > > - There have been over 800 changes committed. > > - Notable major changes: > > o Name changes to inclusive language (Manager instead of Master,…) > > o Enabling external compactions. > > o Changes in the storage of properties in ZooKeeper to reduce > watchers (in progress, issues #1225, #1809) > > o Change tracing to use OpenTracing instead of HTrace (PR #2259) > > o Change metrics to use micrometer.io instead of Hadoop-metrics2 > (PR #2305) > > o Changes to enable per-table encryption and other improvements > (PR #2197) > > o ??? > > > > > > >
