You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Girish Sharma <sc...@gmail.com> on 2024/03/06 12:02:42 UTC
Re: Pulsar Version upgrade guidelines
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 <sc...@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
Re: Pulsar Version upgrade guidelines
Posted by Julien Jakubowski <ju...@streamnative.io.INVALID>.
Hi,
I updated the blog post last week. Apologies for the confusion.
Regards,
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 2:33 PM PengHui Li <pe...@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 <sc...@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 <sc...@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
> >
>
Re: Pulsar Version upgrade guidelines
Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.
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 <sc...@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 <sc...@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
>