Thanks Andrew! One thing I noticed from 2.5.0 was that a few JIRAs were included in that release which did not have the proper fixVersions set (so did not show up in CHANGES.md). I fixed 4 of them before realizing that may not be the way we should handle it. See [1] for the 4 I fixed (which we could revert to 2.5.1 if appropriate), there may be others.
I have filed a few small bugs which I just set the fixVersion to 2.5.1 and will try to get PRs out for soon, but we could also push them out if needed. I also have https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-27381 which would be helpful to have opinions on since it might be worth fixing for 2.5.1 if possible. It's a recurrence of a past gnarly bug with some API compatibility concerns. A 2.6.0 release this calendar year would be great! We have completed most of the TLS work at this point. One other thing I was considering adding to 2.6.0 was a backport of hbase-backups. There is a PR [2] from Mallikarjun, we are currently evaluating internally. I think backporting to 2.x will help get more exposure and contributions, since most people aren't running 3.0-alpha and there's still a backlog of nice-to-haves in the "Phase 4" jira [3] that have languished a bit. I realize this might even require a VOTE thread given the past history? I was only going to bring it up if our evaluation worked out, but seemed relevant to your 2.6.0 question. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-27241?jql=text%20~%20%22%5C%22Seems%20this%20actually%20landed%20in%202.5.0%5C%22%22 [2] https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/4770 [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17362 On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:13 AM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > We are already flattening and the proposed change adds release artifacts > for hadoop3 using a new “hadoop3” classifier — at least, that is the plan, > let’s see if it works — and so the changes are additive. The default build, > which downstreamers consume as of 2.5.0 and all previous releases, remains > unchanged with respect to its dependency set. I think this means the > changes are additive and orthogonal. That said I’d be fine with waiting > until 2.6.0 to introduce the hadoop3 variant… in which case I would begin > work on 2.6.0RC0 for anticipated release this calendar year. YDYT? > > > On Sep 27, 2022, at 7:15 AM, 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > But I think flatten the pom profiles itself is also useful? It does > > not make sense(and also does not work...) to activate a profile which > > pulls in jars that are different from the ones we depend at the time > > when building the hbase artifacts... > > > > Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> 于2022年9月27日周二 19:48写道： > > > >> > >> Yes -- that's why I brought it up in this discussion. I think that we > >> should either finish the effort before 2.5.1 or revert it from > >> branch-2.5 until we have a more complete implementation in place. > >> > >>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:15 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> We already include HBASE-27340 in branch-2.5... So in the 2.5.1 > >>> release we will flatten the pom file, if we do not revert this > >>> commit... > >>> > >>> Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> 于2022年9月27日周二 16:46写道： > >>>> > >>>> I am also concerned about the feature that squashes out the profiles > from > >>>> our poms. To me, specifying the maven profile at build time is a part > of > >>>> the API contract that we should not break in a patch release. I’d > like to > >>>> see that feature integrated into the do-release tooling such that two > sets > >>>> of squished artifacts/maven repos are produced. And of course, > updating the > >>>> docs to explain how these are consumed. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe we need a minor release line where we ship both the old style > and the > >>>> new style artifacts? We could do that with 2.5… > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Nick > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 03:40 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks Andrew for taking care of this. > >>>>> > >>>>> For me there is an issue HBASE-27359, where we can publish different > >>>>> maven artifacts for hadoop2 and hadoop3, it can solve the problem > >>>>> brought up by the phoenix guys. Do you think we should include this > in > >>>>> branch-2.5 and start from 2.5.1 or maybe 2.5.2 if it is too late for > >>>>> 2.5.1, to publish different maven artifacts for hadoop2 and hadoop3, > >>>>> or we still keep 2.5.x as is, and include this in the up coming 2.6.x > >>>>> release line? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> 于2022年9月27日周二 06:52写道： > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It has been about a month since 2.5.0 and there are ~42 issues > >>>>>> < > >>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%3Dhbase%20and%20(%20fixVersion%3D2.5.1%20or%20affectedVersion%20%3D%202.5.1%20) > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%3Dhbase%20and%20(%20fixVersion%3D2.5.1%20or%20affectedVersion%20%3D%202.5.1%20)> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> related to 2.5.1. This week I will be grooming the issue tracker > for a RC > >>>>>> next week.If you have any pending work for branch-2.5 that you > would like > >>>>>> to get in, please set the fix version accordingly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>> Andrew > >>>>> >
