I think we can also target 5.2.1 very soon, perhaps just next month, with more CVE fixes and any other fixes if ready.
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:39 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > For 5.2.0, it would be great to focus on the known data integrity issues. > We can fix non-zk registry, cover a few more CVEs by upgrading third party > dependencies and stabilize tests. As for the tests, they don’t seem broken, > but are flaky. I have got multiple builds without any test failures on PR > for PHOENIX-7106. > > If this looks good to you, I can start release preparation next week. What > do you think, Istvan? > > In the meantime, I have 5.1 backport PR open, awaiting good build results > before committing it. > Rajeshbabu, would you like to be RM for 5.1.4 once the PR is merged? > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:13 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Yes, they basically make the non-ZK registries unusable. >> (at least the connectionless problems should be fixed.) >> >> I hope to have the final fix for those sometime next week. >> >> Also have we looked at potential CVE issues on master recently ? >> >> I think we should also look at the most flakey tests I linked above, >> and fix them or at least make sure that they are test issues and not real >> bugs. >> >> Istvan >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:55 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Thanks Istvan. >> > I would like to cut 5.2 branch from master. Do you see non-ZK registry >> for >> > MapReduce jobs as blocker for 5.2.0? >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 12:24 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > ParallelPhoenixConnectionFailureTest.testExecuteQueryChainFailure also >> > > fails too often, especially when the test host is slow and/or the >> load is >> > > high. >> > > On my fast laptop, I can semi-reliably break it by running >> > > mvn clean verify -am -pl phoenix-core -DnumForkedUT=20 >> > > >> > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 9:19 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > > We're making progress. >> > > > I can see that Viraj has just landed PHOENIX-7601, and Rajeshbabu >> has >> > > > released Omid 1.1.1. >> > > > Thank you! >> > > > >> > > > At the moment, the following outstanding issues are on my radar: >> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7191 >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7193 >> > > > >> > > > These are bugs in my non-ZK registry implementation, which were >> found >> > > > during HBase 3 work. >> > > > I have some PRs up, but they may not be complete. I will push for >> > reviews >> > > > once I have the HBase 3 tests passing, and possibly updated them >> based >> > on >> > > > that. >> > > > >> > > > We also have a number of very flakey tests, see: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/Phoenix/job/Phoenix-mulitbranch/job/master/test_results_analyzer/ >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 7:09 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> As Viraj wrote, those are just plans. >> > > >> If HBase 3 won't be released by the time the other features are >> ready, >> > > >> then it won't make it into 5.3. >> > > >> If other major features are ready by that time, then they will be >> > > >> included. (though we are not aware of any now) >> > > >> >> > > >> As for the new major version, in the past Phoenix didn't have a >> > > >> compatibility module system, >> > > >> so a new branch was required, which didn't support older HBases. >> > Also, >> > > >> the API changes between HBase 1.x and 2.x were much larger, >> > > >> The HBase 2 and 3 API are pretty similar, apart from the removal of >> > > >> deprecated 1.x APIs. (and the protobuf/protocol thing, which >> requires >> > a >> > > >> rather ugly hack). >> > > >> >> > > >> I will start the discussion on how we can add HBase 3 support as >> soon >> > as >> > > >> I have a working POC patch. >> > > >> >> > > >> We could call 5.3 6.0 instead, after all Phoenix isn't using a >> strict >> > > >> semantic versioning, but then 6.0 would also support HBase 2. >> > > >> If we do not come to a consensus on the version name, we can always >> > have >> > > >> a vote on it. >> > > >> >> > > >> I think that the main motivation is that the community wants to >> > maintain >> > > >> as few branches as possible. >> > > >> >> > > >> Istvan >> > > >> >> > > >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:02 PM Stephen Jiang < >> > syuanjiang...@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> I am not sure how close HBase 3.0 is. Even if it is only less >> than >> > one >> > > >>> year away, the adoption would be low at the beginning. I don't >> think >> > > 5.3 >> > > >>> should wait for that. And traditionally, Phoenix would have a >> major >> > > >>> release to support the HBase major release (4.x for HBase 1.x and >> 5.x >> > > for >> > > >>> HBase 2.x), in this case, we are talking about Phoenix 6.0 for >> HBase >> > > 3.0. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Maybe we should adopt the HBase release model: master branch for >> next >> > > >>> major >> > > >>> release (6.0) and branch-5.x branch for next 5.x minor release and >> > > >>> branch-5.2 for 5.2 minor release. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Thanks >> > > >>> Stephen >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:50 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org >> > >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > Sounds good. >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > Planned major changes for 5.3.0: >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > 1. JSON support. >> > > >>> > 2. HBase 3.0 support. >> > > >>> > 3. CDC feature (leveraging uncovered global index framework and >> > JSON >> > > >>> > support). >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:22 PM Kadir Ozdemir >> > > >>> > <kozde...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > I suggest including another major change for 5.3, Phoenix CDC, >> > > >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7001. The PR >> for >> > it >> > > >>> will >> > > >>> > be >> > > >>> > > posted soon. >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:35 AM Viraj Jasani < >> vjas...@apache.org >> > > >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > > Thanks Istvan! I agree with your points. It’s really been a >> > while >> > > >>> we >> > > >>> > are >> > > >>> > > > talking about releasing 5.2.0 and yet due to bandwidth >> issues, >> > > >>> unable >> > > >>> > to >> > > >>> > > do >> > > >>> > > > so. >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > I agree to getting these fixes out, cut 5.2 and start the >> > release >> > > >>> work >> > > >>> > > and >> > > >>> > > > in the meantime I also need to prepare 5.1 backport. >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > For 5.3, let's plan HBase 3.0 support and JSON as major >> > changes. >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:17 PM Istvan Toth < >> st...@apache.org> >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > > Hi! >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > In my opinion cutting 5.2 now only makes sense IF we DO >> NOT >> > > plan >> > > >>> to >> > > >>> > > > release >> > > >>> > > > > the outstanding big features (like JSON) in 5.2. , >> otherwise >> > > it's >> > > >>> > just >> > > >>> > > > > extra work to maintain more branches. >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > Having said that, releasing a 5.2 and 5.1.4 with the data >> > > >>> integrity >> > > >>> > > fixes >> > > >>> > > > > real soon, and then releasing 5.3 in a few months with >> JSON, >> > > and >> > > >>> any >> > > >>> > > > other >> > > >>> > > > > outstanding big features >> > > >>> > > > > that are close to being finished (and HBase 3.0 support, >> if >> > > it's >> > > >>> > ready >> > > >>> > > by >> > > >>> > > > > then) would not be a bad idea. >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > On the CLDR side the only outstanding big feature which >> could >> > > >>> impact >> > > >>> > > > > Viraj's integrity work is HBase 3.0 support, and even >> that is >> > > >>> only >> > > >>> > > > because >> > > >>> > > > > it may require some larger refactors of existing code, not >> > > >>> because it >> > > >>> > > > would >> > > >>> > > > > change the actual behaviour or algorithms. >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > Phoenix used to have several minor releases per year, the >> > > current >> > > >>> > state >> > > >>> > > > of >> > > >>> > > > > extreme longevity of 5.1 and several big new features >> being >> > > >>> added to >> > > >>> > it >> > > >>> > > > > (like uncovered indexes) is not ideal. >> > > >>> > > > > Releasing 5.2 and 5.3 relatively close together could be a >> > > >>> return to >> > > >>> > a >> > > >>> > > > > quicker cadence for minor releases, which could also help >> > with >> > > >>> the >> > > >>> > > public >> > > >>> > > > > image and adoption of Phoenix. >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > We were talking about releasing 5.2 at least a year ago, >> and >> > I >> > > >>> have >> > > >>> > > > started >> > > >>> > > > > working on that then, but then emergencies have come up at >> > > >>> $dayjob, >> > > >>> > > and I >> > > >>> > > > > could not see that through. >> > > >>> > > > > (So I am in part responsible for the lack of minor >> releases) >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > regards >> > > >>> > > > > Istvan >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:35 PM Viraj Jasani < >> > > >>> vjas...@apache.org> >> > > >>> > > > wrote: >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > Do you think cutting 5.2.0 now makes sense? >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > No problem with that. I can cut 5.2 branch by the end of >> > this >> > > >>> week >> > > >>> > or >> > > >>> > > > at >> > > >>> > > > > > the start of next week. >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > If there is any very big change or feature ready for >> merge >> > to >> > > >>> > master >> > > >>> > > > > branch >> > > >>> > > > > > with PR approvals already in place, please do let me >> know >> > so >> > > >>> that I >> > > >>> > > can >> > > >>> > > > > > help collaborate on how best we can get it merged >> without >> > > >>> impacting >> > > >>> > > 5.2 >> > > >>> > > > > > release if required. My main motivation was for any big >> > > change >> > > >>> to >> > > >>> > go >> > > >>> > > > > > through newly introduced tests so that we know that >> > anything >> > > >>> > > additional >> > > >>> > > > > is >> > > >>> > > > > > not broken, and also to prioritize for upcoming 5.2.0 >> and >> > > 5.1.4 >> > > >>> > > > releases. >> > > >>> > > > > > Moreover, there are several PRs getting merged on the >> > master >> > > >>> > branch, >> > > >>> > > we >> > > >>> > > > > can >> > > >>> > > > > > continue that as long as they are not very big changes, >> > which >> > > >>> might >> > > >>> > > > > require >> > > >>> > > > > > significant time to understand any correlation with data >> > > >>> integrity >> > > >>> > > > > issues. >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > The PR is also ready for review with some additional >> cases >> > > >>> fixed >> > > >>> > last >> > > >>> > > > > week: >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/1736__;!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!D4OVjUp2EWW2BqhGnBxsapDX_AHsibRphIpoFBWfgRsd3dsAikrFLo6PGxdTzGbSXJJ2fJ0j9mcz3asXMXo$ >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > Depending on the review bandwidth, I am hopeful we >> should >> > be >> > > >>> good >> > > >>> > to >> > > >>> > > > land >> > > >>> > > > > > them sooner. >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:31 AM Rushabh Shah >> > > >>> > > > > > <rushabh.s...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > Thank you Viraj for initiating this thread. >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Given the critical nature of these issues, I would >> like >> > > to >> > > >>> > > propose >> > > >>> > > > > that >> > > >>> > > > > > > we >> > > >>> > > > > > > treat this as a high priority for the upcoming 5.2.0 >> > > >>> release, and >> > > >>> > > not >> > > >>> > > > > > > include any other feature or big change to master >> branch >> > > >>> until we >> > > >>> > > > merge >> > > >>> > > > > > > this. >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > Do you think cutting 5.2.0 now makes sense? This will >> > > enable >> > > >>> > other >> > > >>> > > > > > > developers to merge features into master branch >> (5.3.0) >> > and >> > > >>> you >> > > >>> > can >> > > >>> > > > > take >> > > >>> > > > > > > some more time to make sure we cover all the corner >> cases >> > > >>> for the >> > > >>> > > > data >> > > >>> > > > > > > integrity issues that you uncovered. >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 6:38 PM Viraj Jasani < >> > > >>> vjas...@apache.org> >> > > >>> > > > > wrote: >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Sounds good, thanks Rajeshbabu. I will try to get >> the >> > > >>> first PR >> > > >>> > > out >> > > >>> > > > > next >> > > >>> > > > > > > > week and while reviews happen in parallel, will try >> to >> > > get >> > > >>> 5.1 >> > > >>> > PR >> > > >>> > > > > soon. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 8:49 PM >> rajeshb...@apache.org < >> > > >>> > > > > > > > chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Hi Viraj, >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Would be better to include the changes in 5.1.4 >> as >> > in >> > > >>> any >> > > >>> > way >> > > >>> > > it >> > > >>> > > > > > will >> > > >>> > > > > > > > take >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > at least 3-4 days to complete the omid release. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Rajeshbabu. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 5:06 AM Viraj Jasani < >> > > >>> > > vjas...@apache.org> >> > > >>> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Kadir and Geoffrey for your replies!! >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > How does this affect 5.1.4, which is also >> listed >> > as >> > > >>> a Fix >> > > >>> > > > > Version >> > > >>> > > > > > > for >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > PHOENIX-7106? >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Yes, it also needs to be ported to 5.1. Once the >> > > >>> master PR >> > > >>> > is >> > > >>> > > > up >> > > >>> > > > > > for >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > final >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > review, I would start working on the backport >> PR. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > We just need some more additional testing to >> ensure >> > > old >> > > >>> > > client >> > > >>> > > > > > (e.g. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > 5.1.3) >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > is compatible with the new server with the >> changes. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Hence, yes it is now a blocker for upcoming >> 5.1.4 >> > as >> > > >>> well >> > > >>> > > since >> > > >>> > > > > > 5.1.4 >> > > >>> > > > > > > > RC >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > preparation is still pending (while Omid >> release is >> > > in >> > > >>> > > > progress). >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Otherwise if 5.1.4 was ready for release, I >> would >> > > have >> > > >>> > > proposed >> > > >>> > > > > > > > immediate >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 5.1.5 release to include the changes proposed >> with >> > > >>> > > > PHOENIX-7106. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 3:08 PM Geoffrey Jacoby < >> > > >>> > > > > gjac...@apache.org >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that data integrity issues are a >> higher >> > > >>> priority >> > > >>> > > than >> > > >>> > > > > > > feature >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > development, so I also support the decision. >> The >> > > fact >> > > >>> > that >> > > >>> > > > > > several >> > > >>> > > > > > > of >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > major remaining 5.2 features are currently >> being >> > > >>> > developed >> > > >>> > > in >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > long-running >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > feature branches also helps, as work can >> continue >> > > >>> there >> > > >>> > at >> > > >>> > > > the >> > > >>> > > > > > cost >> > > >>> > > > > > > > of >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > a >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > rebase later. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > How does this affect 5.1.4, which is also >> listed >> > as >> > > >>> a Fix >> > > >>> > > > > Version >> > > >>> > > > > > > for >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > PHOENIX-7106? From the bug description it also >> > > sounds >> > > >>> > like >> > > >>> > > > > 5.1.3 >> > > >>> > > > > > > and >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > forthcoming .4 are affected, since we have >> > > >>> server-side >> > > >>> > > paging >> > > >>> > > > > in >> > > >>> > > > > > > 5.1. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > (Feel >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > free to move that to a separate thread if you >> > feel >> > > it >> > > >>> > > should >> > > >>> > > > > be a >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > separate >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > discussion.) Should this be a blocker for >> > releasing >> > > >>> > 5.1.4? >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Geoffrey >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 5:06 PM Kadir Ozdemir < >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > ka...@gsuite.cloud.apache.org> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Being a database, Phoenix has to make sure >> that >> > > the >> > > >>> > data >> > > >>> > > > > stays >> > > >>> > > > > > on >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > disk >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > intact and its queries return correct data. >> In >> > > this >> > > >>> > case, >> > > >>> > > > > > Phoenix >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > fails >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > to >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > return correct data for some queries if >> their >> > > scans >> > > >>> > > > > experience >> > > >>> > > > > > > > region >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > movement. Now that we know these data >> integrity >> > > >>> issues >> > > >>> > > and >> > > >>> > > > > how >> > > >>> > > > > > to >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > reproduce >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > them, fixing them should be our first >> priority. >> > > >>> So, I >> > > >>> > > fully >> > > >>> > > > > > > support >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > this >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 10:58 PM Viraj >> Jasani < >> > > >>> > > > > > vjas...@apache.org >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to bring PHOENIX-7106 >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > < >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7106__;!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!FZG5sv55IC1NqItQLY7GKWgUG2Do0gSta01gOiSdd36Dx3XHGtQx4M3c9visVXIt9DctPQzS-orob9vhzrCfVA$ >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > to everyone's >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > attention here and brief about the data >> > > integrity >> > > >>> > > issues >> > > >>> > > > > that >> > > >>> > > > > > > we >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > have >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > in >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > various coprocessors. Majority of the >> issues >> > > are >> > > >>> > > related >> > > >>> > > > to >> > > >>> > > > > > the >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > fact >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > that >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > we do not return valid rowkey for certain >> > > >>> queries. If >> > > >>> > > any >> > > >>> > > > > > > region >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > moves >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > in >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the middle of the scan, the HBase client >> > relies >> > > >>> on >> > > >>> > the >> > > >>> > > > last >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > returned >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > rowkey >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and accordingly changes the scan >> boundaries >> > > >>> while the >> > > >>> > > > > scanner >> > > >>> > > > > > > is >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > getting >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > reset to continue the scan operation. If >> the >> > > >>> region >> > > >>> > > does >> > > >>> > > > > not >> > > >>> > > > > > > > move, >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > scan >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > is >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > not expected to return invalid data, >> however >> > if >> > > >>> the >> > > >>> > > > region >> > > >>> > > > > > > moves >> > > >>> > > > > > > > in >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > middle of ongoing scan operation, scan >> would >> > > >>> return >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > invalid/incorrect >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > data >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > causing data integrity issues. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Given the critical nature of these >> issues, I >> > > >>> would >> > > >>> > like >> > > >>> > > > to >> > > >>> > > > > > > > propose >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > that >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > we >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > treat this as a high priority for the >> > upcoming >> > > >>> 5.2.0 >> > > >>> > > > > release, >> > > >>> > > > > > > and >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > not >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > include any other feature or big change to >> > > master >> > > >>> > > branch >> > > >>> > > > > > until >> > > >>> > > > > > > we >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > merge >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > this. The PR is still not ready as >> additional >> > > >>> changes >> > > >>> > > are >> > > >>> > > > > > still >> > > >>> > > > > > > > in >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > my >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > local, requiring rebase with the current >> > > master. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would get back to this discuss thread as >> > soon >> > > >>> as >> > > >>> > the >> > > >>> > > PR >> > > >>> > > > > and >> > > >>> > > > > > > the >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > doc >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > are >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > updated with the latest findings so far. >> The >> > > >>> changes >> > > >>> > > > > include >> > > >>> > > > > > > many >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > of >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > our >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > coproc scanner implementations and hence >> it >> > > would >> > > >>> > > require >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > significant >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > review as well. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if we can hold on to >> > merging >> > > >>> any >> > > >>> > > > feature >> > > >>> > > > > or >> > > >>> > > > > > > big >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > change >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > to >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > master branch until this gets in so as to >> not >> > > >>> > > complicate >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > merging/rebasing. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Once this is merged to the master branch, >> I >> > > would >> > > >>> > like >> > > >>> > > to >> > > >>> > > > > cut >> > > >>> > > > > > > 5.2 >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > branch >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > from master and we can move forward with >> > 5.2.0 >> > > >>> > release. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if this looks good or >> if >> > you >> > > >>> have >> > > >>> > > any >> > > >>> > > > > > other >> > > >>> > > > > > > > high >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > priority work for 5.2.0. >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> *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> >> > > >> ------------------------------ >> > > >> ------------------------------ >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
