Sounds good to me. I have created Fix versions 3.0 and 2.3 in jira. We can use 2.3 for next release from branch-2.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Owen O'Malley <omal...@apache.org> wrote: > All, > > I'm glad to see a plan to release master before the incompatible changes. > It will be great to have a release that uses the separated out ORC code > base. > > As I had previously discussed on list, I've been working on building a > proposed 2.2 branch, which builds on 2.1.1 and cherry picks a bunch of > changes. The list of patches was picked to synergize with the efforts of > the QA team at Hortonworks. You can look at the patches on > https://github.com/omalley/hive/tree/branch-2.2 . > > The branch is still pretty rough, but I don't expect many large code > changes. I'd like to propose that we take my branch as branch-2.2 and set > up Pengcheng's branch as branch-2.3. We should also consider the packaging > changes (shrouding protobuf, guava, and kyro) that would make integration > with Spark easier in branch-2.3. > > Thanks, > Owen > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <hashut...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > So, I just pushed branch-2 from current tip. > > Now, lets get 2.2 release out as soon as possible. > > > > Thanks, > > Ashutosh > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <hashut...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Cutting a branch should not slow down a 2.2 release. If any thing, this > > > should help in achieving stabilization faster for release since branch > > > won't get any new potentially destabilizing changes but only patches to > > fix > > > existing known issues. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Eugene Koifman < > > ekoif...@hortonworks.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 to make a release first > > >> > > >> On 3/22/17, 2:06 PM, "Sergey Shelukhin" <ser...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hmm.. should we release these first, and then cut branch-2? > > >> Otherwise during the releases, the patches for 2.2/2.3 will need > to > > >> go to > > >> 3 (4?) places (master, branch-2, branch-2.2, branch-2.3?). > > >> There’s no rush to cut the branch if everything in 2.2/2.3 has to > go > > >> to > > >> 3.0 anyway. > > >> > > >> On 17/3/22, 13:53, "Pengcheng Xiong" <pxi...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> >I would like to work as the Release Manager if possible. As Owen > > >> points > > >> >out, he is working on 2.2 and I will work on 2.3. Thanks. > > >> > > > >> >On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan < > > >> hashut...@apache.org> > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Unless there is more feedback, I plan to cut branch-2 in a day > or > > >> two > > >> >>from > > >> >> current master. As multiple people have suggested on this > thread, > > >> we > > >> >>should > > >> >> do a 2.2 release soon. Currently there are 177 issues > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > >> >> 3D%20HIVE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20cf% > > >> >> 5B12310320%5D%20%3D%202.2.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC> > > >> >> targeted for 2.2 release. We can use branch-2 to land these > > >> patches and > > >> >>for > > >> >> additional stabilization efforts. Any volunteer for Release > > Manager > > >> >>driving > > >> >> 2.2 release? > > >> >> > > >> >> Thanks, > > >> >> Ashutosh > > >> >> > > >> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan < > > >> hashut...@apache.org> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > I hear what you are saying. Lets begin with 3 concerns: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > - How will we keep the community motivated on fixing both > > master > > >> and > > >> >> > branch-2? > > >> >> > Until we do a stable release from master, stable releases can > > >> come > > >> >>only > > >> >> > from branch-2. If a contributor wants to see their fix reach > to > > >> users > > >> >>on > > >> >> a > > >> >> > stable line quickly they would have to have a fix on > branch-2. > > >> Also, a > > >> >> > release manager can pick whatever fixes she wants, so even if > > >> >>contributor > > >> >> > doesn't commit it on branch-2, a release manger who wants to > > do a > > >> >>release > > >> >> > containing a set of fixes thats always possible. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > - *Harder cherry-picks between master and branch-2*. > > >> >> > That is certainly possible. But hope is we want to keep > > branch-2 > > >> >>stable, > > >> >> > so we don't backport large features which may run into this > > >> issue. > > >> >> Smaller > > >> >> > focussed bug fix backport should be possible. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > - *Removal of MR2 on the master branch*. > > >> >> > This is something I personally would like to see. But exact > > >> timing of > > >> >>it > > >> >> > will be decided by community. I am certainly not saying that > as > > >> soon > > >> >>as > > >> >> > branch-2 is created, lets remove MR2 on master. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I would also say that in the end ASF is volunteer > organization, > > >> we > > >> >>cant > > >> >> > force people to adopt one branch or another. Its upto the > > >> contributors > > >> >> what > > >> >> > jiras they work on and when and where they commit it. > > >> >> > By not creating a branch-2 only thing we can guarantee is > that > > >> rate of > > >> >> > development on master to remain slow because we don't want to > > >> start > > >> >>doing > > >> >> > backward incompatible changes without explicitly > acknowledging > > >> that. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Thanks, > > >> >> > Ashutosh > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Sergio Pena > > >> >><sergio.p...@cloudera.com> > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> Hey Ashutosh, thanks for soliciting feedback on this. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I like the idea you're proposing; maintaining compatibility > > and > > >> at > > >> >>the > > >> >> >> same time adding newer features to > > >> >> >> Hive consumes a lot of development time and effort. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> However, I think some users and companies have just started > to > > >> use > > >> >>Hive > > >> >> >> 2.x > > >> >> >> branch as their main major upgrade on Hive > > >> >> >> (possible due to waiting for stabilization and testing > > >> upgrades), but > > >> >> >> cutting this major branch that just has 1 year of life > > >> >> >> might make us look like we will forget about the quality of > > >> Hive 2.x > > >> >>as > > >> >> we > > >> >> >> did with branch-1. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Hive 1.x latest version was 1.2, and its development stopped > > >> because > > >> >>new > > >> >> >> features on Hive 2.x > > >> >> >> Hive 2.x latest version is 2.1, and we want to create Hive > 3.x > > >> >>because > > >> >> of > > >> >> >> newer features and incompatibilities. > > >> >> >> Will Hive 3.x have the same future after 3.1 is released? > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> What I'm also concerned is about these three things: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> - *Branch-2 quality commitment*. > > >> >> >> How will we keep the community motivated on fixing both > > >> master and > > >> >> >> branch-2? > > >> >> >> - *Harder cherry-picks between master and branch-2*. > > >> >> >> Because master will be incompatible by nature, then > > >> cherry-picks > > >> >>to > > >> >> >> branch-2 will be harder. > > >> >> >> - *Removal of MR2 on the master branch*. > > >> >> >> This was marked as deprecated just last year, but MR2 is > > >> still an > > >> >> >> engine > > >> >> >> that is used by several users. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I accept that the end of life of major versions will come at > > >> some > > >> >>point, > > >> >> >> and these concerns will expire, > > >> >> >> but Hive 2.x is kind of young, isn't it? > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Should we try to stabilize the Hive 2.x line first, and > have a > > >> few > > >> >>more > > >> >> >> releases before starting to work on Hive 3.0? > > >> >> >> Should we add more test coverage to Hive jenkins jobs to > > >> validate > > >> >>Hive > > >> >> 2.x > > >> >> >> quality? > > >> >> >> Should we agree on a date about when we should drop > community > > >> >>support on > > >> >> >> Hive versions to let users know about this? > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Again, I like your proposal, but I'm afraid that users who > > just > > >> >>upgraded > > >> >> >> to > > >> >> >> 2.x won't have any more features and improvements > > >> >> >> because they will be developed on 3.0. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> - Sergio > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan < > > >> >> >> ashutosh.chau...@gmail.com > > >> >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The way it helps shedding debt is because dev can now do > > >> >>refactoring > > >> >> >> > without fear of breaking some rarely used features. The > way > > >> that > > >> >>helps > > >> >> >> for > > >> >> >> > adding feature faster is since codebase is lean and easier > > to > > >> >>reason > > >> >> >> about > > >> >> >> > its much easier to add new features. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > More importantly though, it also helps users because we > are > > >> setting > > >> >> the > > >> >> >> > expectation from dev community. They can expect that > future > > >> >>releases > > >> >> of > > >> >> >> 2.x > > >> >> >> > to be backward compatible. At the same time whenever they > > >> decide to > > >> >> >> upgrade > > >> >> >> > they only need to test their application once against 3.x > as > > >> >>oppose to > > >> >> >> > continuous breakage of one form or another if we continue > to > > >> make > > >> >> >> > incompatible changes in master without branching for 2.x > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Thanks, > > >> >> >> > Ashutosh > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Edward Capriolo < > > >> >> edlinuxg...@gmail.com > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > Also i dont follow how we remove > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Edward Capriolo > > >> >><edlinuxg...@gmail.com> > > >> >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Thejas Nair < > > >> >> thejas.n...@gmail.com > > >> >> >> > > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thejas.n...@gmail.com > > ');>> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> +1 > > >> >> >> > > >> There are some features that are incomplete and what > I > > >> would > > >> >>not > > >> >> >> > > recommend > > >> >> >> > > >> for any real production use.The 'legacy authorization > > >> mode' > > >> >>is a > > >> >> >> great > > >> >> >> > > >> example of that - > > >> >> >> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confl > > >> uence/display/Hive/Hive+Defaul > > >> >> >> > > >> t+Authorization+-+Legacy+Mode > > >> >> >> > > >> . It is inherently insecure mode that nobody should > be > > >> using. > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> There is also potential to cleanup of the thrift api. > > >> However, > > >> >> >> there > > >> >> >> > are > > >> >> >> > > >> many users of this api, we would need to go the > > >> deprecation > > >> >>then > > >> >> >> > remove > > >> >> >> > > >> after couple of releases route or so for that. > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> I am sure there are many other candidates. We will > have > > >> to > > >> >> evaluate > > >> >> >> > each > > >> >> >> > > >> of > > >> >> >> > > >> those features on the risk/benefit of keeping them > and > > >> >>arriving > > >> >> at > > >> >> >> a > > >> >> >> > > >> decision. > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> Also, +1 on getting a 2.2 release out before we > branch. > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan < > > >> >> >> > hashut...@apache.org > > >> >> >> > > >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hashut...@apache.org > > ');>> > > >> >> >> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > Hi all, > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> > Hive project has come a long way. With wide-spread > > >> adoption > > >> >> also > > >> >> >> > comes > > >> >> >> > > >> > expectations. Expectation of being backward > > compatible > > >> and > > >> >>not > > >> >> >> > > breaking > > >> >> >> > > >> > things. However that doesn't come free of cost and > > >> results > > >> >>in > > >> >> >> lot of > > >> >> >> > > >> legacy > > >> >> >> > > >> > code which can't be refactored without fear of > > breaking > > >> >>things. > > >> >> >> As a > > >> >> >> > > >> result > > >> >> >> > > >> > project has accumulated lot of debt over time. At > the > > >> same > > >> >>time > > >> >> >> > there > > >> >> >> > > >> are > > >> >> >> > > >> > also lot of features which have seen little uptake. > > We > > >> may > > >> >>want > > >> >> >> to > > >> >> >> > > drop > > >> >> >> > > >> > some of those. > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> > In order to move forward and shed that debt we may > > >> need a > > >> >>major > > >> >> >> > > version > > >> >> >> > > >> > release which allows us to make backward > incompatible > > >> >>changes > > >> >> and > > >> >> >> > drop > > >> >> >> > > >> > rarely used features. At the same time there are > lots > > >> of > > >> >>users > > >> >> >> which > > >> >> >> > > are > > >> >> >> > > >> > consuming currently released 2.1 , 2.2 branches and > > >> expect > > >> >>them > > >> >> >> to > > >> >> >> > > stay > > >> >> >> > > >> on > > >> >> >> > > >> > it for some time. So, I propose that we create > > >> branch-2 from > > >> >> >> current > > >> >> >> > > tip > > >> >> >> > > >> > and do future 2.x releases from that branch and > keep > > it > > >> >> backward > > >> >> >> > > >> > compatible. This will allow devs to land breaking > > >> changes on > > >> >> >> master > > >> >> >> > > and > > >> >> >> > > >> > pave way to release hive 3.0 in future. > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> > Ofcourse, each specific incompatible change and > > >> feature drop > > >> >> >> even > > >> >> >> > on > > >> >> >> > > >> > master need to be evaluated on its own merit on > > >> >>corresponding > > >> >> >> jira. > > >> >> >> > > This > > >> >> >> > > >> > email is just a solicitation of feedback for > creating > > >> >>branch-2 > > >> >> >> and > > >> >> >> > > >> allowing > > >> >> >> > > >> > breaking changes in master. Thoughts? > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> > Thanks, > > >> >> >> > > >> > Ashutosh > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > One of the challenges of the developers conducting the > > >> >> risk-benefit > > >> >> >> > > > analysis are that the developers are mostly focused on > > new > > >> >> features, > > >> >> >> > but > > >> >> >> > > > there are deployments of hive that are 5+ years old > and > > >> people > > >> >> that > > >> >> >> > rely > > >> >> >> > > on > > >> >> >> > > > the features are not on the mailing list. > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > For example I developed and use this frequently: > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > https://community.hortonworks. > > >> com/articles/8861/apache-hive- > > >> >> >> > > > groovy-udf-examples.html > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > My career went away from hive for a while. I was quite > > >> >>surprised > > >> >> to > > >> >> >> > find > > >> >> >> > > > out the cli->beeline it was more or less decided not > to > > >> port > > >> >>it. I > > >> >> >> > > learned > > >> >> >> > > > of this the first time I was forced to work in a hive > > >> server > > >> >>only > > >> >> >> > > > environment and it did not work. > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Now I have to go and spend time adding this back so I > > >> don't > > >> >>have > > >> >> to > > >> >> >> > work > > >> >> >> > > > around it not being there. > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > What we should do continue/doing is making code that > is > > >> >>modular we > > >> >> >> need > > >> >> >> > > to > > >> >> >> > > > break hard dependencies like ThriftSerde or OrcSerde > > being > > >> >> "native" > > >> >> >> and > > >> >> >> > > > having to be linked to the metastore move them out > into > > >> proper > > >> >> >> > > submodules. > > >> >> >> > > > There is too much code that only works for one > > >> implementation > > >> >>of a > > >> >> >> > serde > > >> >> >> > > > etc. > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > I would like a timeline to understand this. It sounds as > > if > > >> >>master > > >> >> is > > >> >> >> not > > >> >> >> > > releasable currently, so already broken in a way. We > make > > a > > >> >>branch > > >> >> and > > >> >> >> > > aggreasively break it more? > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > Im not following what makes this branching policy makes > > >> adding > > >> >> >> features > > >> >> >> > > faster or how it helps shed debt faster. > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > -- > > >> >> >> > > Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar > and > > >> spell > > >> >> check > > >> >> >> > than > > >> >> >> > > usual. > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
