Only one I can think of is PHOENIX-4849 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4849> But to your point, I think it's fine to hold off until a 5.1.0 - the only thing is the timeline isn't entirely clear and a compat fix for 5.0.1 sounded urgent.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:29 AM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, cool. Thanks, Vincent! > > Aside from the HBase 2.0.x compatibility fix, what other Phoenix bugs > should be pulled back for a 5.0.1? > > My opinion is that if we don't know the distinct set of fixes for a > 5.0.1, we should just take the tip of master and call it 5.1.0 instead. > > On 9/27/18 12:16 AM, Vincent Poon wrote: > > You're right, Josh, I was mistaken, there was indeed a 5.0.0 release. > But > > I meant the same as your last bit - branch off 5.0.0 and only put in > HBase > > 2.0.2 and critical fixes for 5.0.1. > > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 6:40 PM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> No, Vincent, that is wrong. There *was* a 5.0.0-alpha release. Then, > >> there was a 5.0.0 release (not called alpha). > >> > >> To Thomas' original question: I don't think we need to keep 4.15 in > >> lock-step with 5.x, but if 5.x isn't ready for release for the same > >> reason 4.15 is not ready for release, then we should hold off on another > >> 5.x (from the master branch). > >> > >> In a similar vein, we could also branch off of the 5.0.0 release and > >> cherry-pick back critical changes to make a proper 5.0.1 if a 5.1.0 is > >> still a ways off (as above) > >> > >> On 9/26/18 6:18 PM, Vincent Poon wrote: > >>> The 5.0.0 release apparently was an 'alpha'. I think we should do a > >> 5.0.1 > >>> which can work with HBase 2.0.2 and remove the 'alpha'. > >>> 5.0 has feature parity with 4.14. > >>> 5.1 would have feature parity with 4.15, the main addition being > >> splittable > >>> syscat > >>> > >>> On a sidenote, I've been planning a 4.14.1 release but was waiting for > >> the > >>> CDH builds. It looks like CDH branches are no longer being maintained > >> so I > >>> think I can just move forward with that. (btw we should clean those up) > >>> > >>> If noone else is doing it, I can try doing the 5.0.1 release > >> concurrently. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> If possible please continue to release for one or more of the HBase > 1.x > >>>> code lines. I have a feeling the HBase 1.xes will be in production > for a > >>>> long time yet. > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:42 AM Thomas D'Silva < > [email protected] > >>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Would we also release 4.15, or just a new 5.x release to support > HBase > >>>>> 2.0.1/2.0.2 ? PHOENIX-3534 has a few follow-up JIRAs that are needed > >> for > >>>>> splittable system catalog. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On the user@phoenix list, Francis pointed out how Phoenix 5.0.0 > only > >>>>>> works with HBase 2.0.0 and not 2.0.1 or 2.0.2. This is pretty bad > >> given > >>>>> the > >>>>>> big fixes that went in since 2.0.0. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What do folks think about a new 5.x release? Is it worthwhile to > bring > >>>>>> back a reduced set of commits and make a 5.0.1? Or just release a > >> 5.1.0 > >>>>> and > >>>>>> ask people to move to that instead? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Josh > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> Andrew > >>>> > >>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > >>>> decrepit hands > >>>> - A23, Crosstalk > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
