You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org> on 2023/06/09 05:53:56 UTC
[DISCUSS] which versions are EOL?
Hi Pulsar Community,
I recently noticed this page on our website:
https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions
It shows that only 2.11 and 3.0 are active and security support.
I am guessing the timelines were taken from a strict reading of PIP
47. However, we haven't historically followed the EOL timelines for
PIP 47 strictly, so I want to check here.
For 2.8, I think we should declare it EOL or perform once last release.
For 2.9, I think we could do the same as 2.8, but I am not sure if
that would surprise users.
For 2.10, I think we should not consider it EOL.
Let me know what you think.
(Reminder: all feedback is welcome, especially from users!)
Thanks!
Michael
Re: [DISCUSS] which versions are EOL?
Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.
I removed the "release/2.9.6" label from 50 PRs:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20533
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20513
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20482
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20416
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20363
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20346
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20341
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20326
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20288
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20244
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20233
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20230
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20176
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20122
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20055
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20046
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20043
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20037
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20030
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20025
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19975
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19972
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19957
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19934
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19815
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19775
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19735
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19727
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19700
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19696
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19662
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17095
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18092
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17820
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18007
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18688
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17338
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19661
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17751
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19581
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19031
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16502
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15628
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15363
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15852
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15494
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14327
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13298
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14287
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14641
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 4:37 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> In light of this thread, I think we have a (lazy) consensus that 2.8
> and 2.9 are EOL and we will continue to maintain 2.10.
>
> Would someone be able to update the website to say that 2.10 is not EOL?
>
> I will update the GitHub labels to indicate the 2.9 label should no
> longer be used.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 4:33 AM Yunze Xu <xy...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This is the latest release that runs on JDK11
> >
> > This point makes sense to me. Actually I think it's the latest release
> > that runs on JDK 8 though the recommended JDK for 2.10 is 11. The only
> > question from me is when should 2.10 be EOL?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yunze
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:15 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Micheal,
> > >
> > > Il giorno ven 9 giu 2023 alle ore 07:54 Michael Marshall
> > > <mm...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Pulsar Community,
> > > >
> > > > I recently noticed this page on our website:
> > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions
> > > >
> > > > It shows that only 2.11 and 3.0 are active and security support.
> > > >
> > > > I am guessing the timelines were taken from a strict reading of PIP
> > > > 47. However, we haven't historically followed the EOL timelines for
> > > > PIP 47 strictly, so I want to check here.
> > > >
> > > > For 2.8, I think we should declare it EOL or perform once last release.
> > >
> > > I agree
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For 2.9, I think we could do the same as 2.8, but I am not sure if
> > > > that would surprise users.
> > >
> > > I am not sure, but as far as I know, 2.9 was kind of a transitional
> > > release, and I agree
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For 2.10, I think we should not consider it EOL.
> > >
> > > This is the latest release that runs on JDK11, we really cannot drop
> > > support for this.
> > > It would be worth declaring this LTS, as long as JDK11 is still widely used.
> > >
> > > This issue was discussed many times when we decided to move to JDK17 on 2.11.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > >
> > > > (Reminder: all feedback is welcome, especially from users!)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Michael
Re: [DISCUSS] which versions are EOL?
Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.
In light of this thread, I think we have a (lazy) consensus that 2.8
and 2.9 are EOL and we will continue to maintain 2.10.
Would someone be able to update the website to say that 2.10 is not EOL?
I will update the GitHub labels to indicate the 2.9 label should no
longer be used.
Thanks,
Michael
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 4:33 AM Yunze Xu <xy...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > This is the latest release that runs on JDK11
>
> This point makes sense to me. Actually I think it's the latest release
> that runs on JDK 8 though the recommended JDK for 2.10 is 11. The only
> question from me is when should 2.10 be EOL?
>
> Thanks,
> Yunze
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:15 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Micheal,
> >
> > Il giorno ven 9 giu 2023 alle ore 07:54 Michael Marshall
> > <mm...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > Hi Pulsar Community,
> > >
> > > I recently noticed this page on our website:
> > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions
> > >
> > > It shows that only 2.11 and 3.0 are active and security support.
> > >
> > > I am guessing the timelines were taken from a strict reading of PIP
> > > 47. However, we haven't historically followed the EOL timelines for
> > > PIP 47 strictly, so I want to check here.
> > >
> > > For 2.8, I think we should declare it EOL or perform once last release.
> >
> > I agree
> >
> > >
> > > For 2.9, I think we could do the same as 2.8, but I am not sure if
> > > that would surprise users.
> >
> > I am not sure, but as far as I know, 2.9 was kind of a transitional
> > release, and I agree
> >
> > >
> > > For 2.10, I think we should not consider it EOL.
> >
> > This is the latest release that runs on JDK11, we really cannot drop
> > support for this.
> > It would be worth declaring this LTS, as long as JDK11 is still widely used.
> >
> > This issue was discussed many times when we decided to move to JDK17 on 2.11.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think.
> > >
> > > (Reminder: all feedback is welcome, especially from users!)
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Michael
Re: [DISCUSS] which versions are EOL?
Posted by Yunze Xu <xy...@apache.org>.
> This is the latest release that runs on JDK11
This point makes sense to me. Actually I think it's the latest release
that runs on JDK 8 though the recommended JDK for 2.10 is 11. The only
question from me is when should 2.10 be EOL?
Thanks,
Yunze
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:15 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Micheal,
>
> Il giorno ven 9 giu 2023 alle ore 07:54 Michael Marshall
> <mm...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > Hi Pulsar Community,
> >
> > I recently noticed this page on our website:
> > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions
> >
> > It shows that only 2.11 and 3.0 are active and security support.
> >
> > I am guessing the timelines were taken from a strict reading of PIP
> > 47. However, we haven't historically followed the EOL timelines for
> > PIP 47 strictly, so I want to check here.
> >
> > For 2.8, I think we should declare it EOL or perform once last release.
>
> I agree
>
> >
> > For 2.9, I think we could do the same as 2.8, but I am not sure if
> > that would surprise users.
>
> I am not sure, but as far as I know, 2.9 was kind of a transitional
> release, and I agree
>
> >
> > For 2.10, I think we should not consider it EOL.
>
> This is the latest release that runs on JDK11, we really cannot drop
> support for this.
> It would be worth declaring this LTS, as long as JDK11 is still widely used.
>
> This issue was discussed many times when we decided to move to JDK17 on 2.11.
>
> Cheers
> Enrico
>
>
> >
> > Let me know what you think.
> >
> > (Reminder: all feedback is welcome, especially from users!)
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Michael
Re: [DISCUSS] which versions are EOL?
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
Micheal,
Il giorno ven 9 giu 2023 alle ore 07:54 Michael Marshall
<mm...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> Hi Pulsar Community,
>
> I recently noticed this page on our website:
> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions
>
> It shows that only 2.11 and 3.0 are active and security support.
>
> I am guessing the timelines were taken from a strict reading of PIP
> 47. However, we haven't historically followed the EOL timelines for
> PIP 47 strictly, so I want to check here.
>
> For 2.8, I think we should declare it EOL or perform once last release.
I agree
>
> For 2.9, I think we could do the same as 2.8, but I am not sure if
> that would surprise users.
I am not sure, but as far as I know, 2.9 was kind of a transitional
release, and I agree
>
> For 2.10, I think we should not consider it EOL.
This is the latest release that runs on JDK11, we really cannot drop
support for this.
It would be worth declaring this LTS, as long as JDK11 is still widely used.
This issue was discussed many times when we decided to move to JDK17 on 2.11.
Cheers
Enrico
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> (Reminder: all feedback is welcome, especially from users!)
>
> Thanks!
> Michael