Hi all, Since our household chores have been finished with recent 3.9 and 3.8 version, I think we can get back to this topic.
Looking at the tremendous amount of work that Kezhu is doing on master with client jar separations, I tend to cut 4.0.0 from master once everything is done. If that’d be the case we could make a leap and make JDK 17 the minimum runtime and compile versions for the master branch. wdyt? Once the change is merged to master, we'll backport it to branch-3.9 as follows: * minimum JDK for building: 17 * minimum JRE for running: 8 (no change) This is completely aligned with Christopher’s suggestion except we won’t touch the branch-3.8 as it’s going to be EoL’d in 6 months after the release of 4.0.0. Regards, Andor p.s. Due to my little Maven experience I won’t be able to make the PRs myself, so I’ll ask sb to volunteer. > On Aug 20, 2025, at 20:59, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > It looks like that Confluence page is pretty close to Semver 2.0's > definition (semver.org). > I was confused by the use of the word "major" to refer to 3.10 earlier in > this thread. By the definition there, it'd be a "minor" release. > > Since the version numbering is based on API changes, and not dependency > requirements, it is permissible to update dependencies substantially, > without breaking any documented goal. However, I still think going to 17 in > a 3.x minor release is a bit too much for existing 3.x users who are trying > to stay up-to-date on 3.x. I think 11 is less disruptive for a minor > version bump. But, I also think it would be okay to release 4.0 from the > master branch instead of 3.10, and make bigger, more disruptive changes. My > main concern is whether users on 3.x will be properly prepared for the > risks of disruptive changes. If the version is called 3.10, they may think > it to be low-risk, but if it is called 4.0, they will recognize it as > riskier and can prepare for it. Users tend to infer a lot about the risk > level from the name of the version, and a major version number change > communicates bigger risk that users may need to prepare for. > > In any case, I certainly don't feel too strongly about it. Although my > preference would be to have 11 as the runtime minimum for 3.10, I would > prefer 17 rather than staying on 8. My preferences are: > > * minimum JDK for building all active branches (3.9 and later): 17 > * minimum JRE for running 3.9: 8 (no change) > * minimum JRE for running 3.10: 11 > 17 > 8 > * minimum JRE for running a future 4.x: 17 > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 6:38 PM Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> FYI here's what documented for the project: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=24193438#Roadmap-ReleaseNumbering >> I personally think about it along these lines: "Upgrading between major >> releases will generally require changes to user code". >> The "annually" - I guess that was aspirational. :-) >> >> Regards, >> >> Patrick >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 5:24 PM Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think most people interpret Java/maven version numbers (x.y.z) as: >>> x = major >>> y = minor >>> z = patch/bugfix >>> >>> I think it's confusing when you say 3.10 is a "major" version. What would >>> you call 4.0.0? A "supremely major" release, perhaps? It's fine to treat >> a >>> minor release as a substantial change, but for communication, I think >> it's >>> still a minor release unless you bump the "major" portion of the version. >>> >>> I like the changes that you're planning, but I think they might be >>> significant enough to call it a "major" version and bump to 4.0.0. There >>> doesn't need to be a 3.10... you can just rename it anytime before it is >>> released. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 2:46 PM Andor Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> We agreed on that we cut 3.10.0 from the master branch as new major >>>> release of ZooKeeper. There’s no plan for 4.0.0 right now. >>>> >>>> Bumping minimum JDK version to JDK 17 is for 3.10.0 only. >>>> >>>> I suggested JDK 17, because I’d like to do a major refactoring to >> upgrade >>>> Jetty to the latest (12.1) version and it requires Java 17 in the >>> runtime. >>>> I know it sounds like a big jump, but consider that Java 11 is already >>>> outdated. (EoS was Sept 2023) >>>> >>>> Every version of Jetty including and earlier than 11 is already EoL, so >>> we >>>> don’t benefit too much from a JDK 11 upgrade. >>>> >>>> ZooKeeper 3.9.x will be supported and stay the stable version of Apache >>>> ZooKeeper for a long long time, so people running on Java 8 and 11 are >>>> still covered. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Andor >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 19, 2025, at 13:18, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have reservations about bumping the minimum runtime Java version to >>>>> 17, because I have applications that use ZooKeeper client code that >>>>> run Java 11. I think a more modest change would be to bump the >>>>> required build version to 17, but keep the target version at 11. If >>>>> this is being considered for 4.0.0 only, then I'm okay with just >> going >>>>> to 17 for the runtime version as well. I think my existing >>>>> applications that run on java 11 can continue to use 3.x. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 8:44 AM Kezhu Wang <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 to upgrade to JDK 17 >>>>>> >>>>>> Ideally, I would suggest using different jdk versions for client and >>>>>> server to not push client usage just like kafka[1] and pulsar[2]. >> But >>>>>> given the fact that we don't have a slim client jar[3], so +1 to >> this. >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 to call next release from master as 3.10.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> I think most of the code changes in master since 3.9 were expected >> to >>>>>> be shipped in 3.10.0. One can confirm this in zookeeperAdmin.md. I >>>>>> don't think it is worth bumping to 4.x near its release. >>>>>> >>>>>> I expect 4.x to be a planned version to do some ambitious tasks and >>>>>> probably in a not backward compatible way such as ZOOKEEPER-233[3], >>>>>> ZOOKEEPER-835[4] or ZOOKEEPER-22[5]. Also, there is 4.0.0 in >> jira[6]. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do think bumping to JDK 17 could also be considered as a breaking >>>>>> change, but that could be trivial for dependants to solve and not >>>>>> touching zookeeper related codes. I would prefer new >> features(probably >>>>>> along with breaking changes) from our side in major releases. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]: https://kafka.apache.org/40/documentation/compatibility.html >>>>>> [2]: >>>> >>> >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar?tab=readme-ov-file#pulsar-runtime-java-version-recommendation >>>>>> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-233 >>>>>> [4]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-835 >>>>>> [5]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-22 >>>>>> [6]: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ZOOKEEPER/versions/12313382 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 9:34 AM Andor Molnar <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What tech debt do you mean exactly? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm happy either way, don't have strong opinion, we can stay at >> 3.x.x >>>>>>> versioning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/9/25 06:40, tison wrote: >>>>>>>> Or instead, from a different perspective, if we call a 4.0, can we >>>> pay back >>>>>>>> some tech debt just for compatibility? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> tison. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> tison <[email protected]>于2025年8月9日 周六18:30写道： >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 for JDK17 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -0 for 4.0. Bumping JDK version doesn't break APIs and contracts. >>> So >>>> I'd >>>>>>>>> prefer 3.10. 4.0 may give a signal of a big break change but it >>>> isn't. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> tison. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Li Wang <[email protected]>于2025年8月9日 周六08:51写道： >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's awesome. Thanks for driving this, Andor! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After releasing 3.9.4 I’d like to announce EoL of the 3.8.x >>> release >>>> line >>>>>>>>>>> and create a new minor/major off the master branch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does this mean the next major version (i.e. 4.0.0/3.10.0) will >> be >>>> released >>>>>>>>>> soon, as we need to have a new current release before announcing >>>> EoL of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> 3.8.x release? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Given the 3.9.4 release is in progress, any rough idea on when >> the >>>> next >>>>>>>>>> major version will be? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> what if we rather call the new release 4.0.0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 for calling it 4.0.0. Looks like we have been on 3.x for >> about >>>> 17 years >>>>>>>>>> already. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> what if we make two steps forward instead of one and let Java 17 >>> to >>>> be the >>>>>>>>>>> minimum requirement >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 for Java 17 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Li >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 2:38 PM Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for driving this Andor! I think what you are saying >> makes >>>> sense, >>>>>>>>>>> will be interested to see what other ppl think. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Patrick >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 2:27 PM Andor Molnar <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Li, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic comes up every so often on the Dev list, so let’s >>> bring >>>> it >>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>> again. After releasing 3.9.4 I’d like to announce EoL of the >>> 3.8.x >>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>> line and create a new minor/major off the master branch. I’d >>> like >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> drop >>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 support in that release and make Java 11 as minimum >>>> requirement >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> ZooKeeper. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * In which case, what if we rather call the new release 4.0.0? >>>>>>>>>>>> * Additionally what if we make two steps forward instead of >> one >>>> and >>>>>>>>>> let >>>>>>>>>>>> Java 17 to be the minimum requirement? With that, we could >>> upgrade >>>>>>>>>> Jetty >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> the latest actively supported version. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andor >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 7, 2025, at 13:16, Li Wang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know when 3.10.0 is planned to be released? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Li >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
