You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> on 2015/09/08 19:19:49 UTC
Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Hi Kafka Fans,
What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new
consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for
0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
features deserve a better release number.
The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
everywhere.
Thoughts?
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>.
It seems that everyone is in favor of renaming 0.8.3 to 0.9.0. I made the
following changes in the jira: (1) rename version 0.9.0 to 0.10.0.0; (2)
rename version 0.8.3 to 0.9.0.0; (3) add version 0.9.0.1.
Thanks,
Jun
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:
> Jun,
>
> Makes sense, thanks!
>
> ~ Joestein
> On Sep 10, 2015 1:05 PM, "Jun Rao" <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Joe,
> >
> > One of the reasons that we have been doing beta releases before is to
> > stabilize the public apis. However, in trunk, we have introduced the api
> > stability annotation. The new java consumer api is marked as unstable.
> With
> > this, even if we name the first release of the new consumer as 0.9.0.0
> > (i.e., w/o beta), the users will understand that the api is subject to
> > change. Then, we just need to be prepared for 0.9.0.x releases soon after
> > for critical bug fixes since there are lots of new code in 0.9.0.0.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jun
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:
> >
> > > are we going to deem the new consumer in 0.9.0 as beta? Do we want
> to-do
> > a
> > > 0.9.0-beta and this way when the consumer is g2g we 0.9.0.0
> > >
> > > 0.9.0-beta also allows us to release a lot of new things a bit sooner
> and
> > > have some good cycles of fixes (because you know they will come)
> > >
> > > There is enough new stuff that 0.9-something makes sense, +1 on not
> 0.8.3
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for 0.9
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for 0.9.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jun
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> gwen@confluent.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
> > > > security,
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much
> > > > scoped
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so
> many
> > > > > awesome
> > > > > > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in
> > bunch
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix
> > version"
> > > > > field
> > > > > > > > everywhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly>.
Jun,
Makes sense, thanks!
~ Joestein
On Sep 10, 2015 1:05 PM, "Jun Rao" <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi, Joe,
>
> One of the reasons that we have been doing beta releases before is to
> stabilize the public apis. However, in trunk, we have introduced the api
> stability annotation. The new java consumer api is marked as unstable. With
> this, even if we name the first release of the new consumer as 0.9.0.0
> (i.e., w/o beta), the users will understand that the api is subject to
> change. Then, we just need to be prepared for 0.9.0.x releases soon after
> for critical bug fixes since there are lots of new code in 0.9.0.0.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:
>
> > are we going to deem the new consumer in 0.9.0 as beta? Do we want to-do
> a
> > 0.9.0-beta and this way when the consumer is g2g we 0.9.0.0
> >
> > 0.9.0-beta also allows us to release a lot of new things a bit sooner and
> > have some good cycles of fixes (because you know they will come)
> >
> > There is enough new stuff that 0.9-something makes sense, +1 on not 0.8.3
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for 0.9
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for 0.9.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jun
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gwen@confluent.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
> > > security,
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much
> > > scoped
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> > > > awesome
> > > > > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in
> bunch
> > > of
> > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix
> version"
> > > > field
> > > > > > > everywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Grant Henke
> > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > >
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>.
Hi, Joe,
One of the reasons that we have been doing beta releases before is to
stabilize the public apis. However, in trunk, we have introduced the api
stability annotation. The new java consumer api is marked as unstable. With
this, even if we name the first release of the new consumer as 0.9.0.0
(i.e., w/o beta), the users will understand that the api is subject to
change. Then, we just need to be prepared for 0.9.0.x releases soon after
for critical bug fixes since there are lots of new code in 0.9.0.0.
Thanks,
Jun
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:
> are we going to deem the new consumer in 0.9.0 as beta? Do we want to-do a
> 0.9.0-beta and this way when the consumer is g2g we 0.9.0.0
>
> 0.9.0-beta also allows us to release a lot of new things a bit sooner and
> have some good cycles of fixes (because you know they will come)
>
> There is enough new stuff that 0.9-something makes sense, +1 on not 0.8.3
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for 0.9
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for 0.9.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jun
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
> > security,
> > > > new
> > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much
> > scoped
> > > > for
> > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> > > awesome
> > > > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch
> > of
> > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version"
> > > field
> > > > > > everywhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Grant Henke
> > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly>.
are we going to deem the new consumer in 0.9.0 as beta? Do we want to-do a
0.9.0-beta and this way when the consumer is g2g we 0.9.0.0
0.9.0-beta also allows us to release a lot of new things a bit sooner and
have some good cycles of fixes (because you know they will come)
There is enough new stuff that 0.9-something makes sense, +1 on not 0.8.3
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 for 0.9
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for 0.9.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9.
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
> security,
> > > new
> > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > > >
> > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much
> scoped
> > > for
> > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> > awesome
> > > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > > >
> > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch
> of
> > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version"
> > field
> > > > > everywhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Henke
> Software Engineer | Cloudera
> grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>.
+1 for 0.9
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) for 0.9
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > +1 for 0.9.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jun
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > >
> > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security,
> > new
> > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > >
> > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped
> > for
> > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> awesome
> > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > >
> > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version"
> field
> > > > everywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Grant Henke
Software Engineer | Cloudera
grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding) for 0.9
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> +1 for 0.9.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > >
> > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security,
> new
> > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > >
> > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped
> for
> > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > > features deserve a better release number.
> > >
> > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > > everywhere.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>.
+1 for 0.9.
Thanks,
Jun
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) for 0.9.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kafka Fans,
> >
> > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new
> > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> >
> > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for
> > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > features deserve a better release number.
> >
> > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > everywhere.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
+1 (non-binding) for 0.9.
Ismael
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi Kafka Fans,
>
> What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new
> consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
>
> It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for
> 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> features deserve a better release number.
>
> The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> everywhere.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
I don't know of any 1.0 plans. IMO, it makes sense to have 0.9.0 out first,
and then discuss what it will take to get to 1.0.
Does that make sense?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Aditya Auradkar <
aauradkar@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Gwen,
>
> I certainly think 0.9.0 is better than 0.8.3.
> As regards semantic versioning, do we have a plan for a 1.0 release? IIUC,
> compatibility rules don't really apply for pre-1.0 stuff. I'd argue that
> Kafka already qualifies for 1.x.
>
> Aditya
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to
> converge
> > toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/
> >
> > 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward
> compatible
> > manner.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Gwen,
> > >
> > > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for
> > > this community? Could you give me some insight here?
> > >
> > > -Flavio
> > >
> > > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > >
> > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security,
> > new
> > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > >
> > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped
> > for
> > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> awesome
> > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > >
> > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version"
> field
> > > > everywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Aditya Auradkar <aa...@linkedin.com.INVALID>.
Hi Gwen,
I certainly think 0.9.0 is better than 0.8.3.
As regards semantic versioning, do we have a plan for a 1.0 release? IIUC,
compatibility rules don't really apply for pre-1.0 stuff. I'd argue that
Kafka already qualifies for 1.x.
Aditya
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to converge
> toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/
>
> 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward compatible
> manner.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gwen,
> >
> > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for
> > this community? Could you give me some insight here?
> >
> > -Flavio
> >
> > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > >
> > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security,
> new
> > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > >
> > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped
> for
> > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > > features deserve a better release number.
> > >
> > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > > everywhere.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Jiangjie Qin <jq...@linkedin.com.INVALID>.
Based on the new feature in next release, 0.9 looks reasonable.
There might be some other things worth thinking about. Although we have a
lot of new feature added, many of them are actually either still in
development or not well tested yet. For example, for security features,
only SSL is done and tested. New consumer API might still subject to
changes. In that case. If we release 0.9 now, we might need a lot of
0.9.x.x version to fix bugs and change APIs later. I thought the original
plan was to let 0.8.3 to have both new and old consumer and remove the old
consumer in 0.9.
If we don't have any stability guarantee for versions, I think either way
is fine. But I feel slightly better to have a transitional version 0.8.3.
It might give us some room to test and stabilize.
Thanks,
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to converge
> toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/
>
> 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward compatible
> manner.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gwen,
> >
> > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for
> > this community? Could you give me some insight here?
> >
> > -Flavio
> >
> > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > >
> > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security,
> new
> > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > >
> > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped
> for
> > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > > features deserve a better release number.
> > >
> > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > > everywhere.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>.
So far, we have been following more or less the semantic versioning. It's
just that the major version is really the first leading none zero digit.
So, the first release will be 0.9.0.0. A bug fix release will then be
0.9.0.1. A minor release will be 0.9.1.0.
Thanks,
Jun
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to converge
> toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/
>
> 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward compatible
> manner.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gwen,
> >
> > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for
> > this community? Could you give me some insight here?
> >
> > -Flavio
> >
> > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > >
> > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security,
> new
> > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > >
> > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped
> for
> > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > > features deserve a better release number.
> > >
> > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > > everywhere.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to converge
toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/
0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward compatible
manner.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Gwen,
>
> What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for
> this community? Could you give me some insight here?
>
> -Flavio
>
> > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kafka Fans,
> >
> > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new
> > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> >
> > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for
> > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > features deserve a better release number.
> >
> > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > everywhere.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org>.
Hi Gwen,
What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for this community? Could you give me some insight here?
-Flavio
> On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hi Kafka Fans,
>
> What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new
> consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
>
> It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for
> 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> features deserve a better release number.
>
> The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> everywhere.
>
> Thoughts?
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Mayuresh Gharat <gh...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 0.9 - we may want to get rid of deprecated configs if possible in
this, instead of waiting for 1.0.
Thanks,
Mayuresh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Joel Koshy <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on 0.9 - we may want to adjust our ApiVersions accordingly (i.e.,
> 0.8.3 -> 0.9.0)
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 on 0.9 as well.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Aditya Auradkar <
> > aauradkar@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on 0.9
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1 on 0.9.0
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 on 0.9.0
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >> > > > rajinisivaram@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features
> currently
> >> > > > targeted
> >> > > > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the
> issues
> >> > > > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the
> release
> >> > > > change
> >> > > > > when it is renamed?
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Rajini
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > +1 on 0.9
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -Jay
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> gwen@confluent.io
> >> >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
> >> > > security,
> >> > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty
> much
> >> > > scoped
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so
> many
> >> > > > awesome
> >> > > > > > > features deserve a better release number.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in
> >> bunch
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix
> >> version"
> >> > > > field
> >> > > > > > > everywhere.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > Ashish
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
>
--
-Regards,
Mayuresh R. Gharat
(862) 250-7125
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Joel Koshy <jj...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 0.9 - we may want to adjust our ApiVersions accordingly (i.e.,
0.8.3 -> 0.9.0)
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on 0.9 as well.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Aditya Auradkar <
> aauradkar@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> +1 on 0.9
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 on 0.9.0
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 on 0.9.0
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/
>> > > >
>> > > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
>> > > > rajinisivaram@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently
>> > > > targeted
>> > > > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues
>> > > > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release
>> > > > change
>> > > > > when it is renamed?
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Rajini
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > +1 on 0.9
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -Jay
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gwen@confluent.io
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
>> > > security,
>> > > > > new
>> > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much
>> > > scoped
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
>> > > > awesome
>> > > > > > > features deserve a better release number.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in
>> bunch
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix
>> version"
>> > > > field
>> > > > > > > everywhere.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thoughts?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Ashish
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 0.9 as well.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Aditya Auradkar <
aauradkar@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1 on 0.9
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on 0.9.0
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on 0.9.0
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/
> > > >
> > > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > > rajinisivaram@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently
> > > > targeted
> > > > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues
> > > > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release
> > > > change
> > > > > when it is renamed?
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajini
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 on 0.9
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Jay
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gwen@confluent.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
> > > security,
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much
> > > scoped
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> > > > awesome
> > > > > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in
> bunch
> > > of
> > > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix
> version"
> > > > field
> > > > > > > everywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ashish
> > >
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Aditya Auradkar <aa...@linkedin.com.INVALID>.
+1 on 0.9
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 on 0.9.0
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 on 0.9.0
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/
> > >
> > > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > rajinisivaram@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently
> > > targeted
> > > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues
> > > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release
> > > change
> > > > when it is renamed?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Rajini
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 on 0.9
> > > > >
> > > > > -Jay
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
> > security,
> > > > new
> > > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much
> > scoped
> > > > for
> > > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> > > awesome
> > > > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch
> > of
> > > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version"
> > > field
> > > > > > everywhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ashish
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 0.9.0
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 on 0.9.0
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/
> >
> > No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > rajinisivaram@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently
> > targeted
> > > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues
> > > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release
> > change
> > > when it is renamed?
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on 0.9
> > > >
> > > > -Jay
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with
> security,
> > > new
> > > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > > >
> > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much
> scoped
> > > for
> > > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> > awesome
> > > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > > >
> > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch
> of
> > > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version"
> > field
> > > > > everywhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Ashish
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>.
+1 on 0.9.0
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/
>
> No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> rajinisivaram@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently
> targeted
> > for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues
> > currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release
> change
> > when it is renamed?
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rajini
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on 0.9
> > >
> > > -Jay
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > > >
> > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security,
> > new
> > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > > >
> > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped
> > for
> > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many
> awesome
> > > > features deserve a better release number.
> > > >
> > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version"
> field
> > > > everywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Regards,
Ashish
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
I propose a simple rename: s/0.8.3/0.9.0/
No change of scope and not including current 0.9.0 issues.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
rajinisivaram@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently targeted
> for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues
> currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release change
> when it is renamed?
> Thanks,
>
> Rajini
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > +1 on 0.9
> >
> > -Jay
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kafka Fans,
> > >
> > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security,
> new
> > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> > >
> > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped
> for
> > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > > features deserve a better release number.
> > >
> > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > > everywhere.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com>.
Is the plan to release 0.9 in October with the features currently targeted
for 0.8.3, or would 0.9 be a later release including all the issues
currently targeted for 0.8.3 and 0.9? Will the scope of the release change
when it is renamed?
Thanks,
Rajini
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> +1 on 0.9
>
> -Jay
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kafka Fans,
> >
> > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new
> > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> >
> > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for
> > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > features deserve a better release number.
> >
> > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > everywhere.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>.
Based on the scope, prefer 0.9.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> +1 on 0.9
>
> -Jay
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kafka Fans,
> >
> > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new
> > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
> >
> > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for
> > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> > features deserve a better release number.
> >
> > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> > everywhere.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
--
Thanks,
Neha
Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?
Posted by Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io>.
+1 on 0.9
-Jay
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi Kafka Fans,
>
> What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, new
> consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3?
>
> It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped for
> 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome
> features deserve a better release number.
>
> The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of
> places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field
> everywhere.
>
> Thoughts?
>