Thank you all.

I've triaged all the remaining open JIRAs for Impala 2.12.0 and Impala 3.0
and we have 2 more breaking changes that need to go in for Impala 3.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6340
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-5893

There are also a couple of patches that are very close to completion that
will make it in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6790
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6793

And lastly, there are a few docs JIRAs that are being worked on for Impala
3.0 and Impala 2.12.0.

IMPALA-6340 is probably the most important change at this point, since
DECIMAL_V2 is enabled by default in Impala 3.0 and this is a blocker bug
that needs to be fixed to allow the feature to be used reliably.

All the above JIRAs are being worked on as top priorities and we should
have them completed soon. I will start the remaining formalities as soon as
those changes are in.

Full list of open 2.12.0 JIRAs:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6793?jql=project%20%3D%20IMPALA%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20%22Target%20Version%22%20%3D%20%22Impala%202.12.0%22

Full list of open 3.0 JIRAs:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6793?jql=project%20%3D%20IMPALA%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20%22Target%20Version%22%20%3D%20%22Impala%203.0%22

Thanks to all the authors and reviewers of the above JIRAs for working on
them in a timely manner.

- Sailesh

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> We also just merged a small breaking change to pave the way for Jinchul
> Kim's patch: https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/9957/ (otherwise we might
> have
> to wait for the next major release to merge that).
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Quanlong Huang <huang_quanl...@126.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Tim and Jim! Then I have no other suggestions.+1
> >
> > At 2018-04-03 10:57:58, "Jim Apple" <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >Additionally, because this patch doesn't break any backwards
> > compatibility,
> > >it's fine to merge it for 2.13 and 3.1 when those releases are cut. And
> > >since there are no minimum waiting period between releases, we could cut
> > >those right after that patch lands if we like.
> > >
> > >On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think we should hold the release for the ORC scanner patch -
> > it's a
> > >> great feature, but there are many other equally important features and
> > >> improvements that have been waiting for months to be released.
> > >>
> > >> Generally, there are always going to be big changes that are "nearly
> > there"
> > >> and I think we're best off releasing frequently rather than trying to
> > hold
> > >> releases for specific features. This is especially true for large
> > features
> > >> where it sometimes take a bit of bake time to flush out all of the
> > issues
> > >> with the initial patch.
> > >>
> > >> - Tim
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Quanlong Huang <
> huang_quanl...@126.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi friends,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Is it possible to wait until IMPALA-5717 (
> > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#
> > >> > /c/9134/) is merged? We're eager to upgrade our Impala cluster with
> > the
> > >> > latest ORC-support. I've heard from the community that many other
> > >> companies
> > >> > are waiting for it too. As it's an experimental feature so far, we
> can
> > >> get
> > >> > more feedback on this release.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > As Tim said, this patch is closed to be merged. Could you wait until
> > it's
> > >> > merged?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Quanlong
> > >> >
> > >> > At 2018-04-03 05:56:11, "Jim Apple" <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >> > >agreed.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Philip Zeyliger <
> phi...@cloudera.com
> > >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Sounds like a good plan to me!
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -- Philip
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

Reply via email to