Hi all, The latest commits from the main branch have been integrated into the REL_2_STABLE branch via cherry-pick. All CI checks passed. Would appreciate more reviews and feedback from the community before moving forward.
Best, wei han > From: "Dianjin Wang"<[email protected]> > Date: Tue, Jan 13, 2026, 18:02 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Cloudberry 2.1.0 release > To: "[email protected]"<[email protected]> > Hi all, > > Quick update on PR #1522: the binary swap test is now passing > successfully in CI, and the current results look good. Would > appreciate more reviews and feedback from the community before moving > forward. > > PR link: https://github.com/apache/cloudberry/pull/1522. > > Thanks a lot for your time and help! > > Best, > Dianjin Wang > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 10:16 AM Dianjin Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
