I believe it should be 1.4.0. We only did a x.x.1 kind of release once, when we couldn't release 1.1.0 [1] in the Hadoop 3.3.1 RC1 due to some issues. Instead, we issued 1.1.1 [2], which was ultimately used in 3.3.1. However, I can't exactly recall what was the issue which led to 1.1.1, but I think we found during the RC stage that things aren't working with ozone (HADOOP-17730) & that required a change in hadoop-thirdparty and only in that case we had a .x.x.1 release
-Ayush [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5872bpwrdxjqxy9lkj0p8bdhqdrk2rdk [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/nz7y060crk9p6ws1rcw8fzlygcytgm82 On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 01:50, PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> wrote: > Due to the jar name change for protobuf that is merged but unreleased, > I think that 1.4.0 is better. > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/38 > > Is there a reason to not use the pre-existing Avro PR which seems to > have the same changes? > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/40 > > I don't know what is causing the PR43 build issue. I've seen issues > with dependency check tooling in a few places recently. > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 20:41, Steve Loughran <ste...@cloudera.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > > I'm going to make a new third party jar. > > > > Is there anything we need to do in it other than the avro update? > > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/43 > > > > > > 1. I don't want to rush to do a parquet or guava update unless there > are > > CVEs. we had problems with parquet and java 8 last time. > > 2. what to number it? 1.3.1 or 1.4.0? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org > >
