On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:19 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> More specifically? > Are you asking me? :-) "LTS" literally has a definition in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support > > Stable 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and EoL 3.5 at the end of the year (1st of Jan, > 2023)? > > Andor > > > > > On 2022. Feb 1., at 16:41, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > "LTS" typically has meaning for folks beyond just what the words say. JDK > > LTS. Ubuntu LTS. etc... I think it would be less confusing to stay with > the > > stable/latest labels we have had in the past and plan ahead a bit in > terms > > of giving notice when releases will be removed from support. > > > > Patrick > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi Andrew, > >> > >> I think that wasn’t a general plan from the community at that time, just > >> my opinion based on how long 3.4 was the stable release of ZooKeeper (4 > >> years). Since then the release schedule has become much faster and to be > >> honest I’m not participating in it. > >> > >> As mentioned 3.6 and 3.7 releases are not much different. 3.6 is the > >> “Facebook” version which is well tested and contains lots of patches > that > >> improves robustness. Both versions are good candidates for upgrade, so > >> announcing 3.5 EoL (at least half year from now) is not necessarily bad. > >> > >> As an alternative, staying with the LT(S|M) / non-LT(S|M) terms, I think > >> the following could also be considered for the community: > >> > >> Now: > >> > >> master > >> ---------- > >> 3.7 > >> 3.6 > >> 3.5 LTS > >> ---------- > >> 3.4 EoL > >> > >> Can become: > >> > >> master > >> ---------- > >> 3.8 LTS > >> 3.7 > >> 3.5 LTS > >> ---------- > >> 3.6 EoL > >> 3.4 EoL > >> > >> In order to keep the number of maintained branches low. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Andor > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 2022. Jan 31., at 19:41, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Just to be clear I meant 'you' as the ZooKeeper project as a whole, but > >>> maybe I have misunderstood this response: > >>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17612?focusedCommentId=17311792&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17311792 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:29 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Il Dom 30 Gen 2022, 17:51 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > ha > >>>> scritto: > >>>> > >>>>> Previously in various contexts - specifically, I am thinking of a > >> Hadoop > >>>>> JIRA where we once had a conversation on this topic, but I believe > >> there > >>>>> have been others - you have declared 3.5 a long term stable (LTS) > >>>> release. > >>>>> > >>>>> A sudden EOL of an LTS is jarring and makes future promise of LTS > >>>>> untrustworthy. What I would recommend for what it’s worth is a > >> timetable > >>>> to > >>>>> EOL of 3.5 that is reasonably long, like one or two years, should you > >>>>> decide to EOL it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I am sorry, > >>>> I forgot about such conversation. > >>>> > >>>> Can you share some pointers ? > >>>> > >>>> No problem from my side as soon as there is someone who needs 3.5 and > >> that > >>>> is willing to help. > >>>> > >>>> Our codebase is pretty stable and we usually pay much attention to > >>>> compatibility. So I am sure that 3.5 clients will be able to connect > to > >> new > >>>> servers (and vice versa) > >>>> > >>>> I opened up this discussion to see how much interest is in the > >> community, > >>>> so from your response I understand that there is such interest. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for answering > >>>> > >>>> Enrico > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jan 30, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>> We are going to release 3.8.0. > >>>>>> It is time to think about moving 3.5 to EOL. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Key points: > >>>>>> - we already have a few other "active" branches, 3.6 and 3.7 > >>>>>> - 3.5 still has "ant" files, and cherry picking libraries upgrade is > >>>>>> awkward (you always have to create a separate patch) > >>>>>> - moving to 3.6 is quite easy, so people should not be stuck if > >>>>>> requested to upgrade to 3.6 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thoughts ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Enrico > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best regards, > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - > >>> It's what we’ve earned > >>> Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? > >>> Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on > >>> - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse > >> > >> > >
