I was about 80% percent done with the rebase to the latest Twill version when its retirement was announced :) Took me about a week.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 6:34 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > As someone who investigated an internal mitigation for pulling up Tephra > to a newer Guava version, and decided it was too much work after hitting > some Twill issues in the process, I feel your pain directly and > enthusiastically +1 removal. > > > On Jan 4, 2022, at 7:46 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Agreed. As the person who did the work of pulling Tephra in from the > incubator, I think we were already then in the state of "does someone > actually care about Tephra?". > > > > Without digging into the archives, I think someone was interested, but > it seems like this never manifested. > > > > +1 to remove Tephra integration from Phoenix. > > > >> On 1/3/22 1:38 PM, Viraj Jasani wrote: > >> +1 (unless any volunteer comes forward to support Tephra going forward) > >>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 4:34 PM, Istvan Toth <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> As recently noticed by Lars, Tephra hasn't been working in Phoenix > since > >>> 5.1/4.16 due to a bug. > >>> > >>> The fact that this went unnoticed for a year, and the fact that > generally > >>> there seems to be minimal interest in Tephra suggests that we should > >>> re-visit the decision to maintain Tephra within the Phoenix project. > >>> > >>> The last two commits that were not aimed at fighting bit-rot, but were > real > >>> fixes were committed in Jun 2019 by Lars. In the last two and a half > years, > >>> all we did was try to keep ahead of bit-rot, so that Tephra keeps up > with > >>> new HBase and maven releases, and the changes in the CI infra. > >>> > >>> Tephra uses an old Guava version, and depends heavily on the retired > Apache > >>> Twill project. > >>> This is a major tech debt, and an adoption blocker (CVEs in direct > Tephra > >>> dependencies), which is also carried over into the Phoenix > dependencies and > >>> shaded artifacts that we should rectify. > >>> PHOENIX-6064 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-6064> , > which > >>> broke Tephra support, itself is a workaround so that we can avoid > shipping > >>> Tephra, and its problematic dependencies. > >>> > >>> Ripping out Twill, and updating Guava and other dependencies is a > >>> non-trivial amount of work (I estimate 1-4 weeks, depending on > familiarity > >>> with Tephra/Twill/Guava). > >>> > >>> At the moment, no-one seems to be interested enough in Tephra to bring > its > >>> tech debt to acceptable levels, and in fact no-one seems to be using it > >>> with any recent Phoenix release (as it doesn't work in them). > >>> > >>> I suggest that you also check out the discussion between Lars and me in > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-6615 for some more > details > >>> and background. > >>> > >>> Based on the above, I propose retiring Tephra, and removing Tephra > support > >>> from Phoenix 5.2 / 4.17, unless someone steps up to solve the above > issues > >>> and maintain Tephra. > >>> > >>> Note that this would not mean dropping transaction support from > Phoenix, as > >>> Omid support is in much better shape, and is actively used. > >>> > >>> Please share your thoughts on the issue, if you are using Tephra > and/or can > >>> commit to solving the issues above, or if you agree on its removal, or > any > >>> other suggestions or objections. > >>> > >>> regards > >>> Istvan > >>> > -- *István Tóth* | Staff Software Engineer [email protected] <https://www.cloudera.com> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> <https://www.cloudera.com/> ------------------------------
