Sure Istvan, am fine not delete old versions.

We need to release phoenix-thirdparty fixing the guava vulnerability and
make use here would be better.

I would like to release it this weekend. If required will start another
discussion thread or start release.

@Visa we are trying to productionize the Phoenix with ACID compliance. We
are in the early stages.



On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 11:01 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote:

> Sounds good Istvan, let’s keep the versions.
>
> And thank you so much for fixing broken compilation for 2.1 and 2.2
> versions:
> https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/1714
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:05 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I very much agree on the release.
> >
> > I don't remember why we didn't bump the Omid version in 5.1 after it was
> > released.
> > If it doesn't break anything, then it's a good thing.
> >
> > I disagree on removing the old HBase version support.
> >
> > Just as HBase doesn't remove support for old Hadoop versions in new patch
> > (or even minor) releases,
> > I think it would be much kinder to our users not to force them to upgrade
> > HBase, when it really doesn't cost us
> > much to maintain support for the old versions. (Even if the build with
> 2.1
> > and 2.2 is broken now)
> >
> > I think that we should make an effort to increase Phoenix adoption beyond
> > SFDC and the CLDR customer base.
> > Making life easier for users of the Apache releases by not forcing an
> HBase
> > upgrade is a step in that direction.
> > Regular releases are also something that projects the image of a healthy
> > project.
> >
> > Disclaimer: CLDR maintains an LTS release with Phoenix 5.1 and HBase 2.2,
> > so it would make life a bit harder for us, too.
> >
> > Istvan
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:57 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for the response, Rajeshbabu.
> > >
> > > > Bump up  Omid to 1.1.0
> > >
> > > Sounds good.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Remove the support of HBase versions <2.3.x
> > >
> > > Those versions are long EOL'ed so yes perhaps it makes sense to drop
> > their
> > > support, though I am not sure if we need to manage compatibility for
> the
> > > patch release.
> > > If we have consensus, it's fine to remove them. No strong opinion
> either
> > > way but I am slightly inclined to remove the support since they are
> > already
> > > EOL'ed.
> > >
> > > 2.3 is also EOL'ed, but we should keep it anyway since it was a stable
> > > release line for quite some time and some users might still be using
> > 2.3.x
> > > versions.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:38 PM rajeshb...@apache.org <
> > > chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Would be better to do few things before release.
> > > > 1) Bump up  Omid to 1.1.0
> > > > 2) Remove the support of HBase versions <2.3.x
> > > >
> > > > These would just backports . I will do it if it's fine.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 9:14 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > It's been almost a year since we had the last patch release on the
> > 5.1
> > > > > release line. As discussed on other threads, 5.2 release can wait a
> > > > little
> > > > > longer for some of the features that are in progress. In the
> > meantime,
> > > we
> > > > > should also keep the 5.1 release line active.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have some good contributions on the 5.1 release line. Unless
> > anyone
> > > > > would like to be the RM for 5.1.4, I would volunteer to start the
> > > release
> > > > > preparation early next week.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > *Email*: st...@cloudera.com
> > cloudera.com <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>
> > ------------------------------
> > ------------------------------
> >
>

Reply via email to