We didn't really have such branches for past releases (that I have followed), but we could change the practice.
When I acted as an RM, I didn't feel the need to branch early, but if it helps your planned workflow, then sure. At least it would remind us to actually complete the release in a reasonable amount of time. Istvan On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:30 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > No worries, that’s fine, both 5.2.0 and 5.1.4 can wait for non-zk registry > fixes for a week or so. > > On the other hand, how about we still cut 5.2 branch now and keep > backporting changes landing on master branch to 5.2 if necessary. Once > non-zk registries are fixed, I can start with 5.2.0 release preparation. > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thank you, Viraj, > > > > 5.1.4 also has the non-ZK registries feature, and has the same bugs as > 5.2 > > in that code. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 7:00 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Sure no worries, we can wait a few more days. > > > > > > In the meantime, I have merged the backport PR on 5.1 branch for the > data > > > integrity fixes. Once omid dependency change is in, I believe we are > good > > > to start with 5.1.4. > > > > > > Thank you Rajeshbabu for volunteering to take it up. > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 1:28 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> I appreciate the drive to get 5.2.0 out of the door, but I would > prefer > > to > > >> have a few more days to fix the registry issues, > > >> and run some tests on them before cutting the branch, Viraj. > > >> The non-ZK registry support is one of the bigger new features, and I'd > > >> prefer not to have known breaking bugs in the release. > > >> Can we target Friday or the next Monday for the cut ? > > >> > > >> Istvan > > >> > > >> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 10:07 AM rajeshb...@apache.org < > > >> chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Yes Viraj, I can release 5.1.4 > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Rajeshbabu. > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024, 10:28 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> 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> > > >> >> >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> >> >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
