phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vincent Poon <vincent.poon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Next 5.x release?
Date Fri, 28 Sep 2018 18:40:29 GMT
Only one I can think of is PHOENIX-4849
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4849>
But to your point, I think it's fine to hold off until a 5.1.0 - the only
thing is the timeline isn't entirely clear and a compat fix for 5.0.1
sounded urgent.

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:29 AM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:

> Ok, cool. Thanks, Vincent!
>
> Aside from the HBase 2.0.x compatibility fix, what other Phoenix bugs
> should be pulled back for a 5.0.1?
>
> My opinion is that if we don't know the distinct set of fixes for a
> 5.0.1, we should just take the tip of master and call it 5.1.0 instead.
>
> On 9/27/18 12:16 AM, Vincent Poon wrote:
> > You're right, Josh, I was mistaken, there was indeed a 5.0.0 release.
> But
> > I meant the same as your last bit - branch off 5.0.0 and only put in
> HBase
> > 2.0.2 and critical fixes for 5.0.1.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 6:40 PM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> No, Vincent, that is wrong. There *was* a 5.0.0-alpha release. Then,
> >> there was a 5.0.0 release (not called alpha).
> >>
> >> To Thomas' original question: I don't think we need to keep 4.15 in
> >> lock-step with 5.x, but if 5.x isn't ready for release for the same
> >> reason 4.15 is not ready for release, then we should hold off on another
> >> 5.x (from the master branch).
> >>
> >> In a similar vein, we could also branch off of the 5.0.0 release and
> >> cherry-pick back critical changes to make a proper 5.0.1 if a 5.1.0 is
> >> still a ways off (as above)
> >>
> >> On 9/26/18 6:18 PM, Vincent Poon wrote:
> >>> The 5.0.0 release apparently was an 'alpha'.  I think we should do a
> >> 5.0.1
> >>> which can work with HBase 2.0.2 and remove the 'alpha'.
> >>> 5.0 has feature parity with 4.14.
> >>> 5.1 would have feature parity with 4.15, the main addition being
> >> splittable
> >>> syscat
> >>>
> >>> On a sidenote, I've been planning a 4.14.1 release but was waiting for
> >> the
> >>> CDH builds.  It looks like CDH branches are no longer being maintained
> >> so I
> >>> think I can just move forward with that. (btw we should clean those up)
> >>>
> >>> If noone else is doing it, I can try doing the 5.0.1 release
> >> concurrently.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If possible please continue to release for one or more of the HBase
> 1.x
> >>>> code lines. I have a feeling the HBase 1.xes will be in production
> for a
> >>>> long time yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:42 AM Thomas D'Silva <
> tdsilva@salesforce.com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Would we also release 4.15, or just a new 5.x release to support
> HBase
> >>>>> 2.0.1/2.0.2 ? PHOENIX-3534 has a few follow-up JIRAs that are needed
> >> for
> >>>>> splittable system catalog.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On the user@phoenix list, Francis pointed out how Phoenix 5.0.0
> only
> >>>>>> works with HBase 2.0.0 and not 2.0.1 or 2.0.2. This is pretty
bad
> >> given
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> big fixes that went in since 2.0.0.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do folks think about a new 5.x release? Is it worthwhile
to
> bring
> >>>>>> back a reduced set of commits and make a 5.0.1? Or just release
a
> >> 5.1.0
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> ask people to move to that instead?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Andrew
> >>>>
> >>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> >>>> decrepit hands
> >>>>      - A23, Crosstalk
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message