For HBase we have a separated repo for hbase-thirdparty https://github.com/apache/hbase-thirdparty
We will publish the artifacts to nexus so we do not need to include binaries in our git repo, just add a dependency in the pom. https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.hbase.thirdparty/hbase-shaded-protobuf And it has its own release cycles, only when there are special requirements or we want to upgrade some of the dependencies. This is the vote thread for the newest release, where we want to provide a shaded gson for jdk7. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f12c589baabbc79c7fb2843422d4590bea982cd102e2bd9d21e9884b@%3Cdev.hbase.apache.org%3E Thanks. Vinayakumar B <vinayakum...@apache.org> 于2019年9月28日周六 上午1:28写道： > Please find replies inline. > > -Vinay > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:21 PM Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I'm very unhappy with this direction. In particular, I don't think git is > > a good place for distribution of binary artifacts. Furthermore, the PMC > > shouldn't be releasing anything without a release vote. > > > > > Proposed solution doesnt release any binaries in git. Its actually a > complete sub-project which follows entire release process, including VOTE > in public. I have mentioned already that release process is similar to > hadoop. > To be specific, using the (almost) same script used in hadoop to generate > artifacts, sign and deploy to staging repository. Please let me know If I > am conveying anything wrong. > > > > I'd propose that we make a third party module that contains the *source* > > of the pom files to build the relocated jars. This should absolutely be > > treated as a last resort for the mostly Google projects that regularly > > break binary compatibility (eg. Protobuf & Guava). > > > > > Same has been implemented in the PR > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/1. Please check and let > me > know If I misunderstood. Yes, this is the last option we have AFAIK. > > > > In terms of naming, I'd propose something like: > > > > org.apache.hadoop.thirdparty.protobuf2_5 > > org.apache.hadoop.thirdparty.guava28 > > > > In particular, I think we absolutely need to include the version of the > > underlying project. On the other hand, since we should not be shading > > *everything* we can drop the leading com.google. > > > > > IMO, This naming convention is easy for identifying the underlying project, > but it will be difficult to maintain going forward if underlying project > versions changes. Since thirdparty module have its own releases, each of > those release can be mapped to specific version of underlying project. Even > the binary artifact can include a MANIFEST with underlying project details > as per Steve's suggestion on HADOOP-13363. > That said, if you still prefer to have project number in artifact id, it > can be done. > > The Hadoop project can make releases of the thirdparty module: > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.hadoop</groupId> > > <artifactId>hadoop-thirdparty-protobuf25</artifactId> > > <version>1.0</version> > > </dependency> > > > > > Note that the version has to be the hadoop thirdparty release number, which > > is part of why you need to have the underlying version in the artifact > > name. These we can push to maven central as new releases from Hadoop. > > > > > Exactly, same has been implemented in the PR. hadoop-thirdparty module have > its own releases. But in HADOOP Jira, thirdparty versions can be > differentiated using prefix "thirdparty-". > > Same solution is being followed in HBase. May be people involved in HBase > can add some points here. > > Thoughts? > > > > .. Owen > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:38 AM Vinayakumar B <vinayakum...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I wanted to discuss about the separate repo for thirdparty > dependencies > >> which we need to shaded and include in Hadoop component's jars. > >> > >> Apologies for the big text ahead, but this needs clear explanation!! > >> > >> Right now most needed such dependency is protobuf. Protobuf > dependency > >> was not upgraded from 2.5.0 onwards with the fear that downstream > builds, > >> which depends on transitive dependency protobuf coming from hadoop's > jars, > >> may fail with the upgrade. Apparently protobuf does not guarantee source > >> compatibility, though it guarantees wire compatibility between versions. > >> Because of this behavior, version upgrade may cause breakage in known > and > >> unknown (private?) downstreams. > >> > >> So to tackle this, we came up the following proposal in HADOOP-13363. > >> > >> Luckily, As far as I know, no APIs, either public to user or between > >> Hadoop processes, is not directly using protobuf classes in signatures. > >> (If > >> any exist, please let us know). > >> > >> Proposal: > >> ------------ > >> > >> 1. Create a artifact(s) which contains shaded dependencies. All such > >> shading/relocation will be with known prefix > >> **org.apache.hadoop.thirdparty.**. > >> 2. Right now protobuf jar (ex: > o.a.h.thirdparty:hadoop-shaded-protobuf) > >> to start with, all **com.google.protobuf** classes will be relocated as > >> **org.apache.hadoop.thirdparty.com.google.protobuf**. > >> 3. Hadoop modules, which needs protobuf as dependency, will add this > >> shaded artifact as dependency (ex: > >> o.a.h.thirdparty:hadoop-shaded-protobuf). > >> 4. All previous usages of "com.google.protobuf" will be relocated to > >> "org.apache.hadoop.thirdparty.com.google.protobuf" in the code and will > be > >> committed. Please note, this replacement is One-Time directly in source > >> code, NOT during compile and package. > >> 5. Once all usages of "com.google.protobuf" is relocated, then hadoop > >> dont care about which version of original "protobuf-java" is in > >> dependency. > >> 6. Just keep "protobuf-java:2.5.0" in dependency tree not to break > the > >> downstreams. But hadoop will be originally using the latest protobuf > >> present in "o.a.h.thirdparty:hadoop-shaded-protobuf". > >> > >> 7. Coming back to separate repo, Following are most appropriate > reasons > >> of keeping shaded dependency artifact in separate repo instead of > >> submodule. > >> > >> 7a. These artifacts need not be built all the time. It needs to be > >> built only when there is a change in the dependency version or the build > >> process. > >> 7b. If added as "submodule in Hadoop repo", > maven-shade-plugin:shade > >> will execute only in package phase. That means, "mvn compile" or "mvn > >> test-compile" will not be failed as this artifact will not have > relocated > >> classes, instead it will have original classes, resulting in compilation > >> failure. Workaround, build thirdparty submodule first and exclude > >> "thirdparty" submodule in other executions. This will be a complex > process > >> compared to keeping in a separate repo. > >> > >> 7c. Separate repo, will be a subproject of Hadoop, using the same > >> HADOOP jira project, with different versioning prefixed with > "thirdparty-" > >> (ex: thirdparty-1.0.0). > >> 7d. Separate will have same release process as Hadoop. > >> > >> HADOOP-13363 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-13363) > is > >> an > >> umbrella jira tracking the changes to protobuf upgrade. > >> > >> PR (https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/1) has been > >> raised > >> for separate repo creation in (HADOOP-16595 ( > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16595) > >> > >> Please provide your inputs for the proposal and review the PR to > >> proceed with the proposal. > >> > >> > > -Thanks, > >> Vinay > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:54 AM Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > >> vino...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Moving the thread to the dev lists. > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > +Vinod > >> > > >> > > On Sep 23, 2019, at 11:43 PM, Vinayakumar B < > vinayakum...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Thanks Marton, > >> > > > >> > > Current created 'hadoop-thirdparty' repo is empty right now. > >> > > Whether to use that repo for shaded artifact or not will be > >> monitored in > >> > > HADOOP-13363 umbrella jira. Please feel free to join the discussion. > >> > > > >> > > There is no existing codebase is being moved out of hadoop repo. So > I > >> > think > >> > > right now we are good to go. > >> > > > >> > > -Vinay > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:38 PM Marton Elek <e...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> I am not sure if it's defined when is a vote required. > >> > >> > >> > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >> > >> > >> > >> Personally I think it's a big enough change to send a notification > to > >> > the > >> > >> dev lists with a 'lazy consensus' closure > >> > >> > >> > >> Marton > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2019/09/23 17:46:37, Vinayakumar B <vinayakum...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> As discussed in HADOOP-13363, protobuf 3.x jar (and may be more in > >> > >> future) > >> > >>> will be kept as a shaded artifact in a separate repo, which will > be > >> > >>> referred as dependency in hadoop modules. This approach avoids > >> shading > >> > >> of > >> > >>> every submodule during build. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> So question is does any VOTE required before asking to create a > git > >> > repo? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On selfserve platform > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/newrepo.html > >> > >>> I can access see that, requester should be PMC. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Wanted to confirm here first. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -Vinay > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: private-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: private-h...@hadoop.apache.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
