Filed HBASE-27434 for landing the '${revision}' change.张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2022年10月19日周三 15:52写道： > > After some investigating, I think using the $revision placeholder can > solve the problem here, i.e, using different command line to publish > different artifacts for hadoop2 and hadoop3, with the same souce code. > You can see the comment on HBASE-27359 for more details. > > Next I will open an issue to land the $revision change. And here, I > think first we need to discuss how many new artifacts we want to > publish. For example, for 2.6.0, we only want to publish a > 2.6.0-hadoop3, with the default hadoop3 version? Or we publish > 2.6.0-hadoop3.2, 2.6.0-hadoop3.3 for different hadoop minor release > lines? And do we want to publish different tarballs for hadoop2 and > hadoop3? > > Thanks. > > Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> 于2022年8月31日周三 00:19写道： > > > > I also don't think we should change the defaults in branch-2 until Hadoop 2 > > is EOLed. > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:22 AM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I think changing the default hadoop profile for builds in branch-2 would > > > unnecessarily complicate our compatibility messaging so long as Hadoop 2 > > > hasn't gone EOL. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 5:30 AM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Should we also make hadoop3 the default active profile for branch-2 > > > > going > > > > forward? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:25 PM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The security posture of Hadoop 2 in general is a problem, because > > > > > maintenance on that branch is spotty, that is just how it goes. We had > > > > the > > > > > same situation with our now EOL branch-1. I know Hadoop released > > > > > 2.10.2 > > > > to > > > > > address some CVE worthy problems but it is unclear if 2.10.2 addresses > > > > all > > > > > known issues, unlike 3.3.4. Also as you know Hadoop 2 has unpatchable > > > > > dependencies on org.codehaus versions of Jackson and Jetty, which > > > > > themselves have high scoring CVEs that will never be fixed because > > > > > they > > > > are > > > > > EOL, and other similar issues. Hadoop 3 doesn’t completely solve such > > > > > problems but is the only realistic place we can hope they can be > > > > addressed > > > > > as required. For organizations that implement or require a top to > > > bottom > > > > > security audit of their software bill of materials, it seems possible > > > to > > > > > avoid user pain by providing supported convenience artifacts *and* > > > > > libraries built against Hadoop 3 APIs in the Apache repository > > > > addressable > > > > > with a Maven classifier. > > > > > > > > > > My employer has some interests in this area that align so I would like > > > to > > > > > sponsor (implement, review, commit, RM backfill releases, etc.) this > > > > work. > > > > > Would there be any objections? Read through the thread for some > > > thoughts > > > > on > > > > > approach. Summarized: > > > > > > > > > > - Amend create-release to build, stage, and deploy a -hadoop3 variant > > > > > build by activating the Hadoop 3 build profile. > > > > > > > > > > - Amend the Hadoop 3 build profile to flatten POMs before deployment > > > > > to > > > > > resolve potential downstream issues due to Hadoop 3 being a > > > > > non-default > > > > > build profile. (This could also be applied to all builds.) > > > > > > > > > > - Amend hbase-vote to be aware of and evaluate if present -hadoop3 > > > > variant > > > > > artifacts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:40 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, that would work. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Aug 25, 2022, at 11:35 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> yes, the flatten plugin. We use it in hbase-connectors already. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> https://www.mojohaus.org/flatten-maven-plugin/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> this sounds like it could also be a use case for BOMs, which would > > > > also > > > > > >> benefit users of our client artifacts that use build tools that > > > don't > > > > > >> respect maven profiles generally, like gradle. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:30 AM Andrew Purtell < > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Thinking about this a bit more, we will have an issue in that the > > > > POMs > > > > > >>> published from our -hadoop3 build will not have a default > > > activation > > > > > of our > > > > > >>> Hadoop 3 build profile. The convenience binaries will function as > > > > > expected > > > > > >>> but Maven will read and process eg Phoenix POMs, then download and > > > > > perform > > > > > >>> substitutions on HBase POMs, and then etc, so downstreamers like > > > > > Phoenix > > > > > >>> will have to set up the hadoop.profile variable for us in their > > > > default > > > > > >>> build profile or else the transitive paths through us may be > > > wrong. I > > > > > >>> wonder if there is a Maven plugin available for deploying POMs > > > > > >>> with > > > > all > > > > > >>> variable substitutions performed before deployment, that would > > > solve > > > > > that > > > > > >>> problem and all conceivable related issues. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On Aug 25, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I think 2.x is going to have a few years of life remaining so it > > > > > would > > > > > >>> be best, if we are going to address this, to have a 2.x solution > > > was > > > > > well > > > > > >>> as a 3.x one. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> In my opinion we can continue to publish 2.4 and 2.5 (and 2.6) > > > > > unchanged > > > > > >>> and then also introduce a Hadoop 3 release using “hadoop3” or > > > similar > > > > > as > > > > > >>> Maven classifier. Phoenix could specify this classifier in their > > > > POMs. > > > > > >>> Everyone should be happy. Users who already are comfortable with > > > the > > > > > Hadoop > > > > > >>> 2 default don’t have to change anything. A one time POM change on > > > the > > > > > >>> Phoenix side is required but that’s it. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> The additional build time complexity for generating two releases > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > >>> incorporated into create-release. Nobody does manual releases any > > > > more > > > > > as > > > > > >>> far as I know. Likewise, download and verification of -hadoop3 > > > > > convenience > > > > > >>> binaries can be added to hbase-vote. I believe we are all using > > > that > > > > > tool > > > > > >>> for verification of releases now. After these one time changes are > > > > > landed > > > > > >>> the cost for RMs and PMC will be only in a roughly doubled amount > > > of > > > > > time > > > > > >>> needed to build and verify releases. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Aug 17, 2022, at 9:06 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Geoffrey, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I have no complaints with shipping convenience binaries built > > > > > against > > > > > >>> both > > > > > >>>>> Hadoop2 and Hadoop3. The primary challenge is implementing the > > > > > >>>>> necessary build changes, the secondary challenge is > > > > > verifying/testing it > > > > > >>>>> works reliably. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> But for Phoenix, are you asking for convenience binaries, or are > > > > you > > > > > >>> asking > > > > > >>>>> for artifacts published into maven that have the Hadoop3 profile > > > > > >>> activated > > > > > >>>>> and specify the associated dependencies? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I'm afraid that the 2.5.0 release ship has already sailed. I've > > > > heard > > > > > >>> talk > > > > > >>>>> of a 2.6 "fast-follow", so maybe someone can have the build > > > changes > > > > > >>> ready > > > > > >>>>> for that? Also, isn't this a too little, too late situation? > > > > > Shouldn't > > > > > >>> we > > > > > >>>>> shift our focus to releasing 3.0, which has dropped support for > > > > > Hadoop2? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >>>>> Nick > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 9:30 PM Geoffrey Jacoby < > > > > > gjac...@apache.org> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I see that the next HBase 2.5 RC is imminent, and before that's > > > > set > > > > > in > > > > > >>>>>> stone, I wanted to bring up the question of whether there will > > > be > > > > > >>> official > > > > > >>>>>> HBase 2.5 binaries built with the Hadoop 3 profile and > > > > > >>>>>> available > > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>> usual Maven repositories. (In addition to the usual Hadoop 2 > > > > profile > > > > > >>>>>> binaries) > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> The HBase 2.x line has a commitment to maintain support for > > > Hadoop > > > > > >>> 2.x, but > > > > > >>>>>> Hadoop 3.3 is the current stable Hadoop line and the most > > > > > >>>>>> recent > > > > > >>> release > > > > > >>>>>> notes [1] encourage all users of Hadoop 2.x to upgrade to > > > Hadoop > > > > 3. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Without convenience artifacts built against Hadoop 3, no > > > end-users > > > > > with > > > > > >>>>>> Hadoop 3 clusters will be able to use the Apache-distributed > > > > > binaries > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>>>>> will instead have to recompile HBase from source themselves, or > > > > use > > > > > a > > > > > >>> 3rd > > > > > >>>>>> party distribution that does so for them. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> This is especially inconvenient for downstream projects such as > > > > > Apache > > > > > >>>>>> Phoenix, which has never officially supported the HBase 2.x / > > > > > Hadoop > > > > > >>> 2.10 > > > > > >>>>>> combination. (It currently supports only HBase 2.3 or 2.4 with > > > > > Hadoop > > > > > >>> 3. > > > > > >>>>>> HBase 2.5 support will be added very shortly after its release > > > as > > > > > part > > > > > >>> of > > > > > >>>>>> Phoenix 5.2.) > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> To even run the Phoenix IT tests locally requires contributors > > > to > > > > > >>> download > > > > > >>>>>> the HBase source release and manually mvn install to their > > > > > >>>>>> local > > > > > maven > > > > > >>> repo > > > > > >>>>>> using the Hadoop 3 profile, to avoid crashes in the HBase > > > > > >>> minicluster.[2] > > > > > >>>>>> This is a barrier to new contributors and confuses even veteran > > > > > ones, > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>>>>> has to be done again for every new HBase release. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> In general, I expect the Hadoop 3 user base to grow and the > > > Hadoop > > > > > 2.10 > > > > > >>>>>> user base to shrink with every future HBase 2 release, so I > > > think > > > > > this > > > > > >>> is a > > > > > >>>>>> worthwhile improvement. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Geoffrey > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> [1] https://hadoop.apache.org/release/3.3.4.html > > > > > >>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/phoenix/blob/master/BUILDING.md > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > > > Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - > > It's what we’ve earned > > Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? > > Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on > > - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse
