gianm commented on issue #10780:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/10780#issuecomment-848805936
Closed by #11073
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
gianm commented on issue #10780:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/10780#issuecomment-764200236
Should we go to 3.5.x or 3.6.x?
Given that both are supported, I'm leaning towards 3.5.x, because it's more
likely to be battle-tested / stable. That's mostly what we want from Z
gianm commented on issue #10780:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/10780#issuecomment-764200236
Should we go to 3.5.x or 3.6.x?
Given that both are supported, I'm leaning towards 3.5.x, because it's more
likely to be battle-tested / stable. That's mostly what we want from Z
gianm commented on issue #10780:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/10780#issuecomment-763828684
In that case, I suggest add the tests for ZK 3.5 now, and we announce in the
very next release that people should upgrade to ZK 3.5 when they can, because a
future release will ship wi
gianm commented on issue #10780:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/10780#issuecomment-763370647
Based on what y'all are saying, it sounds like the migration plan would be:
1. We announce that we're going to be removing support for ZK 3.5 servers in
the future, but don't act
gianm commented on issue #10780:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/10780#issuecomment-763331481
What would the migration path look like? Would people need to update Druid
and their ZK quorum in a specific order or would various orders works? Any
downtime needed?
The Curato
