git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Drop 0. from the version


Julian, I mentioned semantic versioning in the previous message. The
comparison with IntelliJ may seem shocking at first, but actually Druid may
be semantically closer to IntelliJ than to Hadoop or Spark. Druid is a
sever-side *application*, not a library or framework. Like Druid has
extensions API, IntelliJ has plugin API, that is also very unstable and
broken in every IntelliJ release, as far as I know.

Comparison with Guava doesn't make a lot of sense - exactly because of
that. Guava is a library, half of the Java world depends on it. Almost
nothing depends on Druid.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 19:46, Julian Hyde <jhyde@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> No one has mentioned Semantic Versioning (semver [1]) yet, so I will.
> I don't know whether the Druid developers think in terms of semver,
> but a lot of your audience will. In semver, the shift from 0. to 1. is
> a big event, because the "only remove APIs in major releases" rule
> does not apply for versions < 1.0.
>
> It would be good if Druid had a policy for how long APIs and will be
> around. It does not need to be based on semver, but if it isn't, it
> should explain how it is different than semver.
>
> It should also spell out the planned release cadence. It sounds like
> you're thinking of two major versions per year, which sounds great.
> But note that Guava did exactly that, and got flak from a lot of
> people because features would move from supported to deprecated to
> gone in just six months.
>
> Regarding combining release 1.0 with Druid's graduation. My gut says
> no. A lot of people mistakenly think that graduation is a sign of
> product maturity, whereas it's actually a sign of *community*
> maturity. You don't want to play into those misconceptions and make
> people think that Druid is less mature than it really is. (For the
> record, I think Druid's product and community are both very mature.) I
> think of 1.0 and graduation as two separate opportunities to generate
> some news. For 1.0 you can talk about how Druid is industry strength,
> has wide adoption at large scales; for graduation you can talk about
> community and what that brings to governance, and adapting to market
> needs.
>
> Also regarding that "1.0" thing. How about going straight to 14.0?
>
> Julian
>
> [1] https://semver.org/
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:10 AM Charles Allen <crallen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > If I'm greedily honest, I don't want to maintain that many backport
> > channels. I'd rather have "If you want XYZ backport for version 14, then
> > you have to take the latest minor version for 14" and have a policy to
> > where someone can upgrade from 14.x --> 14.latest with (hopefully) no
> > config changes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:03 AM David Glasser <glasser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One nice advantage to moving out of 0.x is that it frees up a digit on
> the
> > > right side to more cleanly differentiate between "minor release (a
> random
> > > assortment of bug fixes, small features, etc)" and "patch release
> > > (literally the minimum delta to give you a security fix or high impact
> bug
> > > fix)".
> > >
> > > --dave
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:58 AM Gian Merlino <gian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not too fussy around whether we do a 1.0 or simply drop the 0.
> and
> > > have
> > > > it be a 14.0 or 15.0 or 16.0 or wherever we are at the time we do
> it. I
> > > > also like the quarterly cadence of release-from-master we had before
> we
> > > got
> > > > blocked on the ASF transition, and would like to pick that back up
> again
> > > > (with the next branch cut from master at the end of January, since
> we did
> > > > the 0.13.0 branch cut in late October).
> > > >
> > > > Seems to me that good points of discussion are, what should we use
> as the
> > > > rule for incrementing the major version? Do we do what we've been
> doing
> > > > (incrementing whenever there's either an incompatible change in
> extension
> > > > APIs, or in query APIs, or when necessary to preserve the ability to
> > > always
> > > > be able to roll forward/back one major release). Or do we do
> something
> > > else
> > > > (Roman seems to be suggesting dropping extension APIs from
> > > consideration).
> > > >
> > > > And also, what does 1.0 or 14.0 or 15.0 or what-have-you mean to us?
> Is
> > > it
> > > > something that should be tied to ASF graduation? Completeness of
> vision?
> > > > Stability of APIs or operational characteristics? Something else?
> You are
> > > > right that it is sort of a marketing/mentality thing, so it's an
> > > > opportunity for us to declare that we feel Druid has reached some
> > > > milestone. My feeling at this time is probably ASF graduation or
> > > > completeness of vision (see my earlier mail for thoughts there) are
> the
> > > > ones that make most sense to me.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:41 AM Charles Allen <crallen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is there any feeling in the community that the logic behind the
> > > releases
> > > > > needs to change?
> > > > >
> > > > > If so then I think we should discuss what that release cadence
> needs to
> > > > > look like.
> > > > >
> > > > > If not then dropping the 0. prefix is a marketing / mental item.
> Kind
> > > of
> > > > > like the 3.x->4.x Linux kernel upgrade. If this is the case then
> would
> > > we
> > > > > even want to go with 1.x? I think Roman's proposal would work fine
> in
> > > > this
> > > > > case. Where we just call it Apache Druid 14 (or 15 or whatever it
> is
> > > when
> > > > > we get there) and just keep the same logic for when we release
> stuff,
> > > > which
> > > > > has been something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > For a X.Y release, going to a X.? release should be very straight
> > > forward
> > > > > for anyone running stock Druid.
> > > > > For a X.Y release, going to a (X+1).? or from a (X+1).? back to an
> X.Y
> > > > > release should be feasible. It might require running a tool
> supported
> > > by
> > > > > the community.
> > > > > For a X.Y release, going to an (X+2).? or an (X-2).? is not
> supported.
> > > > Some
> > > > > things that will not have tools might have warning logs printed
> that
> > > the
> > > > > functionality will change (should we change these to alerts?)
> > > > >
> > > > > If this sounds reasonable then jumping straight to Apache Druid 14
> on
> > > the
> > > > > first official apache release would make a lot of sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Charles Allen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:07 PM Gian Merlino <gian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think it's a good point. Culturally we have been willing to
> break
> > > > > > extension APIs for relatively small benefits. But we have
> generally
> > > > been
> > > > > > unwilling to make breaking changes on the operations side quite
> so
> > > > > > liberally. Also, most cluster operators don't have their own
> custom
> > > > > > extensions, in my experience. So it does make sense to
> differentiate
> > > > > them.
> > > > > > I'm not sure how it makes sense to differentiate them, though. It
> > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > done through the version number (only increment the major
> version for
> > > > > > operations breaking changes) or it could be done through an
> > > "upgrading"
> > > > > > guide in the documentation (increment the major version for
> > > operations
> > > > or
> > > > > > extension breaking changes, but, have a guide that tells people
> which
> > > > > > versions have operations breaking changes to aid in upgrades).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Coming back to the question in the subject of your mail: IMO, for
> > > > > > "graduation" out of 0.x, we should talk as a community about what
> > > that
> > > > > > means to us. It is a milestone that on the one hand, doesn't mean
> > > much,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > on the other hand, can be deeply symbolic. Some things that it
> has
> > > > meant
> > > > > to
> > > > > > other projects:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Production readiness. Obviously Druid is well past this. If
> this
> > > is
> > > > > what
> > > > > > dropping the 0. means, then we should do it immediately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Belief that the APIs have become relatively stable. Like you
> said,
> > > > the
> > > > > > extension APIs don't seem particularly close to stable, but maybe
> > > > that's
> > > > > > okay. However, the pace of breaking changes on the operations and
> > > query
> > > > > > side for non-experimental features has been relatively calm for
> the
> > > > past
> > > > > > couple of years, so if we focus on that then we can make a case
> here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Completeness of vision. This one is the most interesting to
> me. I
> > > > > > suspect that different people in the community have different
> visions
> > > > for
> > > > > > Druid. It is also the kind of project that may never truly be
> > > complete
> > > > in
> > > > > > vision (in principle, the platform could become a competitive
> data
> > > > > > warehouse, search engine, etc, …). For what it's worth, my
> vision of
> > > > > Druid
> > > > > > for the next year at least involves robust stream ingestion
> being a
> > > > first
> > > > > > class ingestion method (Kafka / Kinesis indexing service style)
> and
> > > SQL
> > > > > > being a first class query language. These are both, today, still
> > > > > > experimental features. So are lookups. All of these 3 features,
> from
> > > > > what I
> > > > > > can see, are quite popular amongst Druid users despite being
> > > > > experimental.
> > > > > > For a 'completeness of vision' based 1.0 I would want to lift
> all of
> > > > > those
> > > > > > out of experimental status and, for SQL in particular, to have
> its
> > > > > > functionality rounded out a bit more (to support the native query
> > > > > features
> > > > > > it doesn't currently support, like multi-value dimensions,
> > > > datasketches,
> > > > > > etc).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) Marketing / timing. Like, doing a 1.0 around the time we
> graduate
> > > > from
> > > > > > the Incubator. Not sure how much this really matters, but
> projects do
> > > > it
> > > > > > sometimes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another question is, how often do we intend to rev the version?
> At
> > > the
> > > > > rate
> > > > > > we're going, we rev 2-3 major versions a year. Would we intend to
> > > keep
> > > > > that
> > > > > > up, or slow it down by making more of an effort to avoid breaking
> > > > > changes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM Roman Leventov <
> > > leventov.ru@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It may also make sense to distinguish "operations" breaking
> changes
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > API breaking changes. Operations breaking changes establish the
> > > > minimum
> > > > > > > cadence of Druid cluster upgrades, that allow rolling Druid
> > > versions
> > > > > back
> > > > > > > and forward. I. e. it's related to segment format, the format
> of
> > > the
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > kept in ZooKeeper and the SQL database, or events such as
> stopping
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > of ZooKeeper for certain things (e. g. forcing using of HTTP
> > > > > > > announcements). So Druid cluster operators cannot update Druid
> from
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > X to version Z skipping the version Y, if both Y and Z have
> some
> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > breaking changes. (Any such changes should support rollback
> options
> > > > at
> > > > > > > least until the next version with operations breaking changes.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > API breaking changes are just changes in Druid extensions APIs.
> > > Druid
> > > > > > > cluster operators could skip any number of releases with such
> > > > breaking
> > > > > > > changes, as long as their extension's code is updated for the
> > > latest
> > > > > > > version of API.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 20:03, Roman Leventov <
> leventov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It doesn't seem to me that Druid API is going to stabilize
> in the
> > > > > near
> > > > > > > > future (if ever), because there are so many extension points
> and
> > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > is broken in every release. On the other hand, Druid is not
> > > Hadoop
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > Spark, which have applications API. Druid API for
> extensions, not
> > > > > > > > applications. It is used by people who are closer to Druid
> > > > > development
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > fixing their extensions is routine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With that, I think it make sense to drop "0." from the Druid
> > > > version
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > call it Druid 14, Druid 15, etc.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>