Thank you, Matteo. I agree that features should be delivered continuously when that is possible. In this case, that might not apply.
I also agree that calling this Pulsar 3.0 isn't necessarily aligned with PIP-175 since an LTS release is when the major version is bumped. I'm fine in calling this "Pulsar Next Gen" or something that calls out that this is planning for making a major leap in Pulsar. There are several unresolved issues with PIP-45 and the Pulsar Load balancer. The previously referred email threads contain a lot of context to this. Resolving the issues efficiently will most likely result in breaking changes, which will be the reason why it deserves a major version upgrade. We have discussed it before that it's crucial to have a path to migrate users when there are breaking changes. This should be covered in any of the solutions that are introduced. Optimally, users of Pulsar would be able to upgrade seamlessly to Pulsar Next Gen / Pulsar 3.0, but rolling back might not be directly supported. I am welcoming everyone to join this planning for the Apache Pulsar Next Gen architecture. Please check the first email in this thread for details of context, and start participating and contributing today. The best way to contribute is to participate in the email threads, since they contain details with better context. -Lari On 2022/10/07 18:03:00 Matteo Merli wrote: > Given the past experiences and the discussions that already happened > around "PIP-175: Extend time based release process", the idea is to > detach the 3.0 from "big-features" items or "incompatible changes". > > The changes are going to get included as they are ready, within > feature releases, and in a fully compatible way. We don't need to > group them together and create unnecessary risk for the release > schedule and the users. > > > -- > Matteo Merli > <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 10:47 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Greeting from ApacheCon North America 2022 from New Orleans! > > We had a great conference with a dedicated Pulsar track. Thanks to all > > presenters and everyone who attended. The talks weren't recorded, but the > > slides will be later on posted on the conference website [1]. > > > > At ApacheCon there were several presentations about "the Apache way" and > > what that means in practice. Based on that, we all know that no person is > > nominated as the CTO of Apache Pulsar who decides on Pulsar 3.0 and when > > that happens. It's us, the community, that serve that role together. We > > come together as individuals with the Apache hat on. Everyone is equal in > > the community, regardless of whether they are contributors, committers or > > PMC members. > > We welcome everyone to participate. The small detail about voting shouldn't > > stop anyone from participating in any aspects of the planning for the > > roadmap. > > > > I'll like to get the discussions going for Pulsar 3.0. We don't need a > > separate decision to start planning that. Please correct me if I'm wrong or > > if you have a different opinion. > > > > There are a few previous discussion threads that are related to Pulsar 3.0 > > planning. > > If you are interested in getting involved with Apache Pulsar 3.0 planning, > > I think that it makes sense for you to read these threads carefully and > > reply to them. Please also suggest what you think makes sense. > > > > PIP-45 related: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/tvco1orf0hsyt59pjtfbwoq0vf6hfrcj > > Pulsar Load balancer / namespace bundle related: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/roohoc9h2gthvmd7t81do4hfjs2gphpk > > renaming topics: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vrr75rrh4trqlp14objh3snlfvmzdrp2 > > backpressure: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/v7xy57qfzbhopoqbm75s6ng8xlhbr2q6 > > > > Long list of Metadata inconsistency issues by Zac Bentley: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12555 > > That would be a good starting point to understanding the data inconsistency > > issues related to current PIP-45 design. Perhaps those could be addressed > > already before Pulsar 3.0? > > > > I'm looking forward to everyone's participation in the Apache Pulsar 3.0 > > planning discussions. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > -Lari > > > > 1 - https://www.apachecon.com/acna2022/schedule.html >
