You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> on 2024/03/14 11:51:20 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.10 & 2.11 EOL - pulsar.apache.org website shows that support has ended
Thanks for documenting this, Frank.
I have created a PR to update the release policy, https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/848 . Please review.
The last set of CVEs were raising questions about breaking our release policy when we provided upgrades for unsupported versions of Pulsar by releasing 2.10.6, 2.11.4 and 3.1.3.
The additional note in the release policy hopefully clarifies how the Apache Pulsar project follows the policy.
-Lari
On 2024/02/01 17:17:07 Frank Kelly wrote:
> Lari, Matteo, Chris etc talked about this a good bit in the Community
> meeting today.
> What I was looking for and what seems that Matteo was amendable to was
> adding a blurb here
> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions
>
> saying something like
> "Please plan according to these committed dates below. However, depending
> on the availability of resources and time and/or the severity of an issue
> (e.g. a very impactful CVE), some ad hoc releases may be possible going
> back some number of patch releases but these would be provided on a
> 'best-effort' basis."
>
> -Frank
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:56 PM Alexander Hall <ah...@teknoluxion.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On a related note, according to the release policy page (
> > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions),
> > the 3.1 branch only has ~16 more days of support. I'm hoping that 3.2.0
> > gets the green light for release before then, because we really didn't get
> > much of a support overlap between the 3.1 and 3.2 releases.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank Kelly <fk...@cogitocorp.com.INVALID>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 10:44 AM
> > To: dev@pulsar.apache.org
> > Subject: '[External]'Re: [DISCUSS] 2.10 & 2.11 EOL - pulsar.apache.org
> > website shows that support has ended
> >
> > [You don't often get email from fkelly@cogitocorp.com.invalid. Learn why
> > this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > Clarity around this would be useful as we just started the process of
> > upgrading from 2.10.3 to 2.11.3 I know 3.0 now has LTS but I not hoping to
> > have to do another update for a while
> > https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2023/05/02/announcing-apache-pulsar-3-0/
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 6:11 AM Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Bumping this thread to the top. We need to find a resolution.
> > >
> > > -Lari
> > >
> > > On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 11:13, Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Our website shows that "active support" and "security support" has
> > > > ended
> > > on 11 Jan 2024 for 2.11 and on 18 Apr 2023 for 2.10 . You can find
> > > this information in our release policy page at
> > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versi
> > > > ons
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean that the Apache Pulsar PMC won't be driving more new
> > > releases for branch-2.11 and branch-2.10 ? Are there exceptions?
> > > > Do we need to make a separate decision about 2.10 & 2.11 EOL ?
> > > >
> > > > -Lari
> > > >
> > > > On 2023/12/19 06:25:20 Michael Marshall wrote:
> > > > > Hi Pulsar Community,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we consider the 2.10 release line EOL? If not, is there a
> > > > > committer that would like to volunteer to release 2.10.6?
> > > > >
> > > > > We briefly discussed keeping 2.10 alive in June [0], and that was
> > > > > followed by a 2.10.5 release in July. Given that we already have
> > > > > 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, and now a discussion on 3.2, it seems
> > > > > unsustainable to keep
> > > > > 2.10 going much longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > [0]
> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/w4jzk27qhtosgsz7l9bmhf1t7o9mxjhp
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.10 & 2.11 EOL - pulsar.apache.org website shows that support has ended
Posted by Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org>.
There's also a PR to change the GitHub issue template for bug reports:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22267
This is to ensure that bug reporters are aware that bugs won't get fixed in unsupported versions and that they would do the work to first reproduce the issue on a supported version of Pulsar client and Pulsar broker.
-Lari
On 2024/03/14 11:51:20 Lari Hotari wrote:
> Thanks for documenting this, Frank.
> I have created a PR to update the release policy, https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/848 . Please review.
>
> The last set of CVEs were raising questions about breaking our release policy when we provided upgrades for unsupported versions of Pulsar by releasing 2.10.6, 2.11.4 and 3.1.3.
> The additional note in the release policy hopefully clarifies how the Apache Pulsar project follows the policy.
>
> -Lari
>
> On 2024/02/01 17:17:07 Frank Kelly wrote:
> > Lari, Matteo, Chris etc talked about this a good bit in the Community
> > meeting today.
> > What I was looking for and what seems that Matteo was amendable to was
> > adding a blurb here
> > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions
> >
> > saying something like
> > "Please plan according to these committed dates below. However, depending
> > on the availability of resources and time and/or the severity of an issue
> > (e.g. a very impactful CVE), some ad hoc releases may be possible going
> > back some number of patch releases but these would be provided on a
> > 'best-effort' basis."
> >
> > -Frank
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:56 PM Alexander Hall <ah...@teknoluxion.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On a related note, according to the release policy page (
> > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions),
> > > the 3.1 branch only has ~16 more days of support. I'm hoping that 3.2.0
> > > gets the green light for release before then, because we really didn't get
> > > much of a support overlap between the 3.1 and 3.2 releases.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frank Kelly <fk...@cogitocorp.com.INVALID>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 10:44 AM
> > > To: dev@pulsar.apache.org
> > > Subject: '[External]'Re: [DISCUSS] 2.10 & 2.11 EOL - pulsar.apache.org
> > > website shows that support has ended
> > >
> > > [You don't often get email from fkelly@cogitocorp.com.invalid. Learn why
> > > this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > >
> > > Clarity around this would be useful as we just started the process of
> > > upgrading from 2.10.3 to 2.11.3 I know 3.0 now has LTS but I not hoping to
> > > have to do another update for a while
> > > https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2023/05/02/announcing-apache-pulsar-3-0/
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 6:11 AM Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bumping this thread to the top. We need to find a resolution.
> > > >
> > > > -Lari
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 11:13, Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Our website shows that "active support" and "security support" has
> > > > > ended
> > > > on 11 Jan 2024 for 2.11 and on 18 Apr 2023 for 2.10 . You can find
> > > > this information in our release policy page at
> > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versi
> > > > > ons
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this mean that the Apache Pulsar PMC won't be driving more new
> > > > releases for branch-2.11 and branch-2.10 ? Are there exceptions?
> > > > > Do we need to make a separate decision about 2.10 & 2.11 EOL ?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Lari
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2023/12/19 06:25:20 Michael Marshall wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Pulsar Community,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we consider the 2.10 release line EOL? If not, is there a
> > > > > > committer that would like to volunteer to release 2.10.6?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We briefly discussed keeping 2.10 alive in June [0], and that was
> > > > > > followed by a 2.10.5 release in July. Given that we already have
> > > > > > 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, and now a discussion on 3.2, it seems
> > > > > > unsustainable to keep
> > > > > > 2.10 going much longer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [0]
> > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/w4jzk27qhtosgsz7l9bmhf1t7o9mxjhp
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>