Hi, I updated the blog post last week. Apologies for the confusion. Regards,
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 2:33 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Girish, > > I have updated the Pulsar website > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/ > > ``` > 3.0 -> 4.0 -> 3.0 is OK; > 3.2 -> 4.0 -> 3.2 is OK; > 3.2 -> 4.4 -> 3.2 is OK; > 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 3.0 is OK; > 3.0 -> 3.2 -> 3.0 is OK; > 3.2 -> 5.0 is not OK. > ``` > > Regards, > Penghui > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:03 PM Girish Sharma <scrapmachi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Bumping this up. > > I cannot be the only one confused by these questions. > > > > Pulsar is at a stage where users have to constantly upgrade due to > > stability or feature needs. The answers to the questions I am asking > should > > help everyone planning upgrades from 2.x to 3.x and other combinations. > > > > Regards > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 6:31 PM Girish Sharma <scrapmachi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > There have been a few discussions in the past on the slack channel and > I > > > recently also started a similar thread [0] regarding if we can skip > > certain > > > releases while upgrading towards pulsar 3.0 and beyond. Starting this > dev > > > mailing list discussion to get some more input. > > > > > > As per official release policy [1] itself, there are some open > questions: > > > > > > *Before 3.0, upgrade should be done linearly through each feature > > version. > > >> For example, when upgrading from 2.8 to 2.10, it is important to > > upgrade to > > >> 2.9 before going to 2.10. * > > >> > > > > > > This is a very clear statement. Although lengthy, it makes sense to > limit > > > the scope of OSS to test upgrades from and to every version. > > > > > > *Starting from 3.0, additionally, live upgrade/downgrade between one > LTS > > >> and the next one is guaranteed. For example, * > > >> > > > > > > What does this exactly entail? Does it only mean that I can do 3.0.x > <-> > > > 4.0.x ? The example just below is misleading from that perspective > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> *3.0 -> 4.0 -> 3.0 is OK; 3.2 -> 4.0 -> 3.2 is OK; 3.2 -> 4.4 -> > > >> 3.2 is OK; 3.2 -> 5.0 is not OK.* > > > > > > > > > This seems to give a feeling that it is possible to upgrade from any > 3.x > > > version to any 3.x or 4.x version including rollbacks. Are we testing > > this > > > as new 3.x versions release? > > > > > > To add to the confusion, the blog post [2] of 3.2 release mentions this > > > > > > *For the 3.2 series, you should be able to upgrade from version 3.1 or > > >> downgrade from the subsequently released version 3.3. If you are > > currently > > >> using an earlier version, please ensure that you upgrade to version > 3.1 > > >> before proceeding further.* > > > > > > > > > This is confusing now. So 3.2 -> 4.0 would be possible but 3.0 -> 3.2 > > > isn't? Why is 3.2 -> 4.4 possible then? > > > > > > Wish to see the community's take on this in order to align the > > > recommendation. > > > > > > [0] > https://apache-pulsar.slack.com/archives/C5Z4T36F7/p1705392242948349 > > > [1] > > > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#compatibility-between-releases > > > [2] > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2024/02/12/announcing-apache-pulsar-3-2/ > > > > > > -- > > > Girish Sharma > > > > > > > > > -- > > Girish Sharma > > >
