Hi, The PR is still in progress and needs more work. Thanks for your comment. I will share more details on GitHub.
For introducing commits from main to REL_2_STABLE, both approaches sound workable. Your way is more efficient than cherry-picking and keeps the commit SHA unchanged. Maybe we can try your way first. Only a few commits need to be reverted or updated. (The breakable PRs were labeled, so they were figured out more easily.) On Friday, January 9, 2026, Leonid Borchuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi! > > +1 for the catalog compatibility check. > > Also, I see you have created https://github.com/apache/ > cloudberry/pull/1522, > where we can check if all the tests pass for both old and new binaries. > This > should check both the catalog compatibility and correct working with stored > data. > > By the way, I realized that you proposed cherry-picking a set (series) of > commits from the main branch to the REL_2_STABLE. > > I used to want to save effort and thought we could sync the main with > REL_2_STABLE and then revert commits breaking catalog compatibility. But > it's hard to implement, and there may be several such commits. And we > should create a reverting commit(s) (which could be challenging). > > So, your proposal for cherry-picking commits is more appealing to me. And > we > could also check them in the workflow and make sure everything works as > expected. Let's do it this way. > > WBW, Leonid. > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 6:31 AM Dianjin Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Happy New Year, and best wishes for 2026! 🎉 > > > > I’d like to follow up on the earlier thread and suggest that we > > revisit the discussion about the Apache Cloudberry 2.1.0 release. From > > a user perspective, having a 2.1 release on top of 2.0 is quite > > important, as it allows users to benefit from incremental improvements > > and bug fixes without waiting too long for a larger release. > > > > To move this forward, I think there are two key points we should align > on: > > > > 1. CI coverage for the `REL_2_STABLE` branch > > > > We should invest in proper CI for the release branch. For changes > > flowing from `main` to `REL_2_STABLE`, it may be safer to go through > > PRs rather than direct pushes, so that changes are visible and > > properly validated. > > > > From an implementation standpoint, we can likely reuse most (or all) > > of the existing CI workflows from main by simply extending them to > > also run on the release branch. > > > > 2. Upgrade path from 2.0 to 2.1 > > > > As discussed before, we should ensure that users can upgrade from 2.0 > > to 2.1 as smoothly as possible. Ideally, this means supporting a > > direct binary-replacement-style upgrade, without data migration. > > > > To gain confidence here, we may need to establish something similar to > > an ABI (or catalog compatibility) testing mechanism, so we can clearly > > define and validate the upgrade guarantees we provide. > > > > Glad to hear everyone’s thoughts on these points and whether it makes > > sense. Looking forward to the discussion. > > > > BTW, we can certainly continue this discussion into next week to allow > > everyone time to catch up after the New Year holidays. > > > > Best, > > Dianjin Wang > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:42 PM Lirong Jian <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, we definitely should have a 2.1 release with all bug fixes and > > > improvements except those related to catalog changes, since the branch > > > associated with the 2.0.0 version is sort of too old. > > > > > > Best, > > > Lirong > > > > > > > > > Dianjin Wang <[email protected]> 于2025年10月21日周二 15:58写道： > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:50 PM Leonid Borchuk < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, ./postgres --catalog-version for 2.0.0-incubating takes us > > > > > Catalog version number: 302502091 > > > > > > > > > > while current HEAD - 302509031 > > > > > > > > > > So it's impossible to migrate from 2.0.0 to the current HEAD. Users > > > > should > > > > > create a new cluster and then use cbcopy to move all data. Which is > > not a > > > > > minor change. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should create 2.1 without changes in catalog and then > merge > > all > > > > > our fixes and release version 3.0 ? > > > > > > > > Yes, the main branch catalog has been changed. The version has been > > > > bumped to 3.0.0 in the main. > > > > > > > > Additionally, I believe that one goal of the 2.1 release is to allow > > > > users to upgrade their 2.0 simply by swapping the binary, without > > > > requiring data migration. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > -- Best, Dianjin Wang
