Hi, Huxing In my view generally one release is followed after Alpha, Beta, RC is a quite normal workflow. And it keeps the stability, steady and seriousness to the final release. Especially for common users they can not recognize where 2.7.3 is a release for RC purpose in name "2.7.3" but things could be clear if name it "2.7.3-RC1" or "2.7.3-BETA".
Sure it's a personal opinion. best regards, Jason > On Jun 14, 2019, at 12:50, Huxing Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:42 AM Jason Joo <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi, Huxing >> >> Something you may misunderstand that the versions in descriptions from Jun >> should like: >> >> 2.7.3-RC1 >> 2.7.3-RC2 >> 2.7.3-RC3 >> 2.7.3 > > This naming looks weird to me. If 2.7.3-RC1 is not production ready, > what does 2.7.2 mean? They are inconsistent. > > What I am proposing is: > > 2.7.3 (Not production ready) > 2.7.4 (Not production ready) > ... > 2.7.N (mark as production ready) > > > >> >> >> best regards, >> >> Jason >> >>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 11:26, Huxing Zhang <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:01 AM Jun Liu <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am +1 on marking current release NOT production ready. >>>> >>>> Do you think several rounds of beta or RC is necessary before every formal >>>> release? >>> >>> Given that 2.7.0-2.7.2 has already been published. I think it is weird >>> that the next version is 2.7.3-RC1. >>> Instead of that I think keep bumping the version to 2.7.3 is ok, as >>> long as we let the community know that it is not production ready >>> until the community formally announce it. >>> >>>> >>>> Other people have different opinions? >>>> >>>> Jun >>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Huxing Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:02 AM Jun Liu <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, All >>>>>> >>>>>> Recently, Jeff and I and some other volunteers from the community are >>>>>> trying to improve the performance of Dubbo. When doing benchmark, we >>>>>> found that the usage of CompletableFuture in the 2.7.2 has a significant >>>>>> performance degradation (both QPS and RT) when running under the JDK 1.8 >>>>>> version (but performs ok under JDK 11), check this issue[1] for more >>>>>> details. Thinking of some other problems found recently, the service >>>>>> registration discovery problem in 2.7.1[2], the configuration model >>>>>> unification problem[3], etc. I think we need to reconsider the evolution >>>>>> plan and stability guarantee of 2.7. >>>>>> >>>>>> From my point of view, version 2.7 is releasing in a relatively fast >>>>>> pace, with each version containing lots of features and refactoring >>>>>> changes, I think this is a good sign for the community. But this also >>>>>> brings us new problems, especially when we don't have enough >>>>>> infrastructures and time to test each version, it is very difficult to >>>>>> ensure the functional stability and well performance of each version. >>>>>> Considering our roadmap in the near future, this situation seems to be >>>>>> even worse. According to our draft roadmap released in last meetup in >>>>>> Beijing, we will release the native cloud service discovery model in >>>>>> version 2.7.3 or 2.7.4, which is almost a complete refactoring of >>>>>> Dubbo's current service discovery functionality, I doubt the both the >>>>>> API and feature stability is hard to guarantee without several releases. >>>>>> >>>>>> So my main concern is the stability of the 2.7.x version. Maybe the >>>>>> released or the following several releases should be marked as >>>>>> non-production available from the community level officially, or >>>>>> consider add beta, RC, etc. tags to some version numbers if necessary. >>>>>> What do others think? >>>>>> >>>>>> What do others think? >>>>> >>>>> I am +1 on marking current release NOT production ready. >>>>> It is necessary for users to try out the new features and provide >>>>> feedback, I think after several iterations, the 2.7.x will enter into >>>>> stability eventually. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. https://github.com/apache/dubbo/issues/4279 >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/dubbo/issues/4279> >>>>>> 2. https://github.com/apache/dubbo/issues/4213 >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/dubbo/issues/4213> >>>>>> 3. https://github.com/apache/dubbo-website/pull/388 >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/dubbo-website/pull/388> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jun >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best Regards！ >>>>> Huxing >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best Regards！ >>> Huxing >> > > > -- > Best Regards！ > Huxing
