I would say first we should gather a list of changes which we want to target and find out which improvements really need major version release. We can take the Pulsar-1.0 to Pulsar-2.0 upgrade example to avoid major interruption and impact on existing systems and still achieve our goal. So, the first step is discovery of such features and then we can discuss how to introduce them in Pulsar with minimum impact on existing systems.
Thanks, Rajan On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 1:05 PM Devin Bost <devin.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm noticing some pushback on the idea of pre-emptively proposing any kind > of breaking upgrade that would necessitate cutting a 3.0 release. > I do understand the concern about introducing a breaking change... For a > distributed messaging application like Pulsar, if clients needed to be > simultaneously upgraded with brokers, that could be extremely difficult or > infeasible for companies to coordinate without treating it like a migration > to a new technology. > > At the same time, do we want to be completely closed to the possibility > that a breaking change could be required at some point in the future? If a > circumstance like that appears, those are the kinds of situations that can > lead to a fork. Are there certain kinds of breaking changes that are more > acceptable than others? > > Also, if the forward looking plan is to never introduce breaking changes, > when *would* we ever cut a Pulsar 3.x release? Do we have any criteria on > what kinds of changes would necessitate cutting a new major release but > would still be considered acceptable by the community? > > -- > Devin Bost > Sent from mobile > Cell: 801-400-4602 > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2022, 2:14 PM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> wrote: > > > This sounds like the current state of Apache Pulsar has a lot of issues > and > > it requires fundamental design changes to make it promising which is > > definitely not true and I disagree with it. And I would be careful > > comparing with Kafka as I still don't think the Kafka release has > anything > > to do with Pulsar's improvement. I would still recommend to list down all > > the changes at one place so we can bring everyone on the same page. > discuss > > as a community and we make sure existing usecases continue using Pulsar > and > > not try to find Pulsar alternatives with incorrect disruption impression > > and efforts they might have to put to upgrade or maintain pulsar. > > > > Thanks, > > Rajan > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 7:49 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > We could all have our own favorite names for this work. :) > > > > > > There's advice that you should disrupt yourself before someone disrupts > > > you. > > > Shouldn't we follow that advice for Apache Pulsar? We can disrupt > Pulsar > > > together with our Apache hats on. The catch is that since we are doing > > > this, we will be able to learn and improve Pulsar so that we stay ahead > > of > > > competition. Pulsar was long ways ahead of competition for so many > years, > > > but Kafka is finally catching up. Did Kafka surpass Pulsar in some > > aspects > > > with the recent 3.3 release, where Kraft became GA? That's a question > > that > > > many might be asking. Why wouldn't we rev up Pulsar's engine and show > the > > > tail lights to Kafka? > > > > > > We don't have to have deadlines or any restrictions like that right > now. > > > The sky's the limit. > > > Linus Torvalds has written a book called "Just for fun". I got my copy > of > > > this book signed by Linus himself in year 2000 at an event that the > book > > > publisher had organized in Finland. > > > > > > What if we did this "just for fun"? The intention could also be to beat > > > Kafka, but that could be a boring goal for many. What if we could > unleash > > > some talent that is among us and hasn't had a chance to show its full > > > potential? Opensource is about joy. It is about welcoming everyone to > > join. > > > Opensource should be egoless, although we must all admit that we don't > > > succeed in that aspect. We must fight our biases. > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk explains the importance of being welcoming for success at > > > Apache, in a 3-minute YouTube interview: > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5kQnVFo7E > > > This interview is about Jarek's blog post "Success at Apache: Welcoming > > > communities strengthens the Apache way": > > > > > > > > > https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/success-at-apache-welcoming-communities > > > I was pleased to meet Jarek at ApacheCon among so many other welcoming > > > personalities of the Apache community and the Apache Pulsar community. > > > > > > Goals have to be ambitious. What if we set the bar really high? > > > Apache Pulsar with 10 million topics in a cluster? > > > Why not go up to 100 million topics? > > > Just for fun. :) > > > > > > -Lari > > > > > > On 2022/10/07 22:53:59 Matteo Merli wrote: > > > > I actually disagree with the term "Pulsar Next Gen", because I > haven't > > > > seen any proposal for which that would make sense to me to be called > > > > so. > > > > > > > > Rajan: That's the whole point of breaking it down. If you accumulate > > > > many "big" changes it introduces a lot of risk for instabilities and > > > > incompatibilities. Breaking it down in multiple steps helps to see > the > > > > incremental changes and introduced them in a phased manner. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Matteo Merli > > > > <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 3:37 PM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Can we get the list of changes at one place which we are planning > to > > > get as > > > > > part of 3.0. One thing I would like to see as a part of a major > > > release, it > > > > > CAN NOT impact existing usecases and users in any way which can > force > > > them > > > > > to upgrade the client library. Applications using < 3.0 version > > should > > > > > continue getting all the client and server side enhancements and > bug > > > fixes. > > > > > Failing to provide bug-fixes and features to client < 3.0 means we > > are > > > > > forcing them to upgrade client version by putting efforts to handle > > all > > > > > incompatibility. and that's something we should definitely prevent > > > because > > > > > Apache Pulsar is used by many large scale business usecases and we > > > should > > > > > accommodate and motivate them to continue using Apache Pulsar. > > > > > I understand as a Pulsar community we should always try to progress > > and > > > > > build better but not at the cost of losing or reducing the Apache > > > Pulsar > > > > > community. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Rajan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:41 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
