> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8. Agree. We should clarify this one. I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7 and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the release strategy clear. LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12) Feature release -> 6 months (3+3) Thanks, Penghui On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> wrote: > I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning > to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem > worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8. > > Thanks, > Michael > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no? > > We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11. > > If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new > > regressions > > will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0 > > release. > > > > IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966) > > after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months. > > > > For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now. > > Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that > > case. > > We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar. > > > > Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since > 4.15.2 > > has regressions [1] > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523 > > > > Thanks, > > Penghui > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes > > > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master. > > > > > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch > > > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3 > > > months. > > > > > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR > > > tags and milestones to prevent confusion. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Michael > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Pulsar fellows, > > > > > > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11. > > > > > > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one. > > > > > > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch, > > > > > > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11 > > > > and start with something that is already stale. > > > > > > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the > > > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before > cutting > > > > the release. > > > > > > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or > fixed > > > > or closed as "not a problem": > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you > > > > created the issue. > > > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar. > > > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more > > > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is > > > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a > > > > third party project and only in some private QA environment. > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> wrote: > I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning > to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem > worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8. > > Thanks, > Michael > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no? > > We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11. > > If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new > > regressions > > will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0 > > release. > > > > IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966) > > after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months. > > > > For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now. > > Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that > > case. > > We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar. > > > > Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since > 4.15.2 > > has regressions [1] > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523 > > > > Thanks, > > Penghui > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes > > > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master. > > > > > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch > > > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3 > > > months. > > > > > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR > > > tags and milestones to prevent confusion. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Michael > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Pulsar fellows, > > > > > > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11. > > > > > > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one. > > > > > > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch, > > > > > > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11 > > > > and start with something that is already stale. > > > > > > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the > > > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before > cutting > > > > the release. > > > > > > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or > fixed > > > > or closed as "not a problem": > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you > > > > created the issue. > > > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar. > > > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more > > > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is > > > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a > > > > third party project and only in some private QA environment. > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > >
