Hi All, The branch that will be used for the patch release: https://github.com/apache/hop/tree/2.18.1-patch
Cheers, Hans On 8 Jun 2026 at 11:32 +0200, Hans Van Akelyen <[email protected]>, wrote: > Hi All, > > I'll be preparing a 2.18.1 branch and cherry pick some of the things we have > found and fixed. I'd like to keep these patch releases to a minimum as making > them isn't just a click of a button and do indeed require a vote and all that. > > Cheers, > Hans > On 8 Jun 2026 at 10:30 +0200, Francois Papon <[email protected]>, > wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > > > I'm not sure we are on a rush to release quickly after a release because > > users can also stay on the previous version and the release process is > > not so quick. > > > > The only case where I saw less than 72 hours on vote at ASF projects is > > when there is a severe CVE. > > > > regards, > > > > François > > [email protected] > > [email protected] > > > > Le 05/06/2026 à 10:43, Matt Casters (i-Bridge) a écrit : > > > That's why we have a minor version scheme. It doesn't always have to be .0 > > > at the end. > > > I'm in favor of NOT waiting 2 weeks and just doing the 2.18.1 point > > > release > > > to minimize the impact. > > > If other regressions pop up despite everything we can do a 2.18.2 as well > > > IMO. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > Op vr 5 jun 2026 om 10:30 schreef Bart Maertens <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > As you may have noticed, we have a regression [1] in the Sorted Merge > > > > > transform in 2.18.0. > > > > > We have no meaningful integration tests for Sorted Merge, so this > > > > > slipped > > > > > through the cracks. > > > > > > > > > > Sorted Merge is a crucial transform, so this issue will cause a lot of > > > > > production deployments to fail when they try to upgrade to 2.18.0. > > > > > Even though we usually do not create patch releases, this regression > > > > > might > > > > > be serious enough to break our habit and create a 2.18.1 release. > > > > > > > > > > Given the fact that this regression was introduced in a massive burst > > > > > of > > > > > XML cleanup changes [2]. It might make sense to wait another week or > > > > > 2 to > > > > > see if any other regressions show up. > > > > > > > > > > Just to be clear: this is about the fact that there’s a regression. > > > > > The XML > > > > > cleanup is tricky but had to be done. This is in no way meant to point > > > > > fingers; please consider this discussion a blameless post-mortem. > > > > > > > > > > My suggested approach would be: > > > > > 1. Give this discussion 72 hours to allow all developers and PMC > > > > > members to > > > > > weigh in. When the discussion is closed, we inform the users that we > > > > > have > > > > > found a significant regression in 2.18.0 and will create a patch > > > > > release. > > > > > At the same time, we ask them to check for any additional regressions > > > > > and > > > > > report asap if they find any. > > > > > 2. We wait another 2 weeks to see if any other regressions show up, > > > > > and > > > > > then create a 2.18.1 patch release before the end of the month (June). > > > > > 3. We put our focus on creating additional integration tests for > > > > > transforms > > > > > and actions in the 2.19.0 release. > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/hop/issues/7219 > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/hop/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aclosed%20milestone%3A%222.18%22%20cleanup%20xml > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Bart > > > > >
