Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Stamatis Zampetakis]

The umbrella ticket is HIVE-26654 [1]. I am currently looking into
HIVE-26968 and probably gonna merge this in the following days.

Help in reviewing or fixing the remaining tickets would be much appreciated.

Best,
Stamatis

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26654

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:52 AM Attila Turoczy
 wrote:
>
> +2. Who is working now on the TPCDS regression? Can I / We help him/ her?
>
> -Attila
>
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:04 AM Stamatis Zampetakis 
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Attila we should do our best to come out with the next GA
> > soon. In order to do that we should treat the TPCDS regressions that are
> > already reported. It doesn't make much sense to give out a GA that cannot
> > run the whole TPCDS suite without crashing or returning wrong results.
> >
> > If solving all the problems in a reasonable timeframe is not possible then
> > I would suggest to cut another alpha or beta release.
> >
> > Best,
> > Stamatis
> >
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023, 6:36 PM Attila Turoczy  > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Could we please give some attention to this topic? I strongly believe
> > that
> > > we should put in every effort to release Hive 4. The Hive community needs
> > > to demonstrate that we are active and accomplishing exciting
> > developments.
> > > It is quite disheartening to note that our last major GA release was a
> > > staggering 5 years ago on 18th May 2018! The significance of version 4.0
> > > cannot be overstated, and we should definitely prioritize its promotion.
> > >
> > > [image: image.png]
> > >
> > > -Attila
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Kirti Ruge  wrote:
> > >
> > >> I see a few tickets like HIVE-26400 which is a major milestone, are
> > >> resolved .
> > >> Can we reevaluate priorities of other JIRAs so that It may give us
> > clarity
> > >> GO/NO-GO  for 4.0.0 GA release  and its timeline?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Kirti
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:27 PM Stamatis Zampetakis 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Regarding correctness, I think it makes sense to change default values
> > >> and
> > >> > possibly add a warning note when there's a known risk of wrong
> > results.
> > >> > Needless to say that we should try to fix as many issues as possible;
> > we
> > >> > still need volunteers to review open PRS.
> > >> >
> > >> > Performances regressions are trickier but if we have the query plans
> > >> (CBO +
> > >> > full) along with logs (including task counters) for fast and slow
> > >> execution
> > >> > we may be able to understand what happens. Don't hesitate to create
> > Jira
> > >> > tickets with these information if available.
> > >> >
> > >> > Last regarding 4.0.0 blockers, I don't think we need a special label.
> > >> The
> > >> > built-in and widely used priority "blocker" seems enough to capture
> > the
> > >> > importance and urgency of a ticket.
> > >> > Since I am the release manager for the next release I will go over
> > >> tickets
> > >> > marked as blockers and reevaluate priorities if necessary.
> > >> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Stamatis
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:27 AM Denys Kuzmenko 
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Thanks, Sungwoo for running the TPC-DS benchmark. Do we know if the
> > >> same
> > >> > > level of performance degradation was present in 4.0.0-alpha1?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > All: please use the `hive-4.0.0-must` label in a ticket if you think
> > >> it's
> > >> > > a show-stopper for the release.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Attila Turoczy]

+2. Who is working now on the TPCDS regression? Can I / We help him/ her?

-Attila


On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:04 AM Stamatis Zampetakis 
wrote:

> I agree with Attila we should do our best to come out with the next GA
> soon. In order to do that we should treat the TPCDS regressions that are
> already reported. It doesn't make much sense to give out a GA that cannot
> run the whole TPCDS suite without crashing or returning wrong results.
>
> If solving all the problems in a reasonable timeframe is not possible then
> I would suggest to cut another alpha or beta release.
>
> Best,
> Stamatis
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023, 6:36 PM Attila Turoczy  >
> wrote:
>
> > Could we please give some attention to this topic? I strongly believe
> that
> > we should put in every effort to release Hive 4. The Hive community needs
> > to demonstrate that we are active and accomplishing exciting
> developments.
> > It is quite disheartening to note that our last major GA release was a
> > staggering 5 years ago on 18th May 2018! The significance of version 4.0
> > cannot be overstated, and we should definitely prioritize its promotion.
> >
> > [image: image.png]
> >
> > -Attila
> >
> > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Kirti Ruge  wrote:
> >
> >> I see a few tickets like HIVE-26400 which is a major milestone, are
> >> resolved .
> >> Can we reevaluate priorities of other JIRAs so that It may give us
> clarity
> >> GO/NO-GO  for 4.0.0 GA release  and its timeline?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kirti
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:27 PM Stamatis Zampetakis 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Regarding correctness, I think it makes sense to change default values
> >> and
> >> > possibly add a warning note when there's a known risk of wrong
> results.
> >> > Needless to say that we should try to fix as many issues as possible;
> we
> >> > still need volunteers to review open PRS.
> >> >
> >> > Performances regressions are trickier but if we have the query plans
> >> (CBO +
> >> > full) along with logs (including task counters) for fast and slow
> >> execution
> >> > we may be able to understand what happens. Don't hesitate to create
> Jira
> >> > tickets with these information if available.
> >> >
> >> > Last regarding 4.0.0 blockers, I don't think we need a special label.
> >> The
> >> > built-in and widely used priority "blocker" seems enough to capture
> the
> >> > importance and urgency of a ticket.
> >> > Since I am the release manager for the next release I will go over
> >> tickets
> >> > marked as blockers and reevaluate priorities if necessary.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Stamatis
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:27 AM Denys Kuzmenko 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Thanks, Sungwoo for running the TPC-DS benchmark. Do we know if the
> >> same
> >> > > level of performance degradation was present in 4.0.0-alpha1?
> >> > >
> >> > > All: please use the `hive-4.0.0-must` label in a ticket if you think
> >> it's
> >> > > a show-stopper for the release.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Stamatis Zampetakis]

I agree with Attila we should do our best to come out with the next GA
soon. In order to do that we should treat the TPCDS regressions that are
already reported. It doesn't make much sense to give out a GA that cannot
run the whole TPCDS suite without crashing or returning wrong results.

If solving all the problems in a reasonable timeframe is not possible then
I would suggest to cut another alpha or beta release.

Best,
Stamatis

On Fri, May 12, 2023, 6:36 PM Attila Turoczy 
wrote:

> Could we please give some attention to this topic? I strongly believe that
> we should put in every effort to release Hive 4. The Hive community needs
> to demonstrate that we are active and accomplishing exciting developments.
> It is quite disheartening to note that our last major GA release was a
> staggering 5 years ago on 18th May 2018! The significance of version 4.0
> cannot be overstated, and we should definitely prioritize its promotion.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> -Attila
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Kirti Ruge  wrote:
>
>> I see a few tickets like HIVE-26400 which is a major milestone, are
>> resolved .
>> Can we reevaluate priorities of other JIRAs so that It may give us clarity
>> GO/NO-GO  for 4.0.0 GA release  and its timeline?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kirti
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:27 PM Stamatis Zampetakis 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Regarding correctness, I think it makes sense to change default values
>> and
>> > possibly add a warning note when there's a known risk of wrong results.
>> > Needless to say that we should try to fix as many issues as possible; we
>> > still need volunteers to review open PRS.
>> >
>> > Performances regressions are trickier but if we have the query plans
>> (CBO +
>> > full) along with logs (including task counters) for fast and slow
>> execution
>> > we may be able to understand what happens. Don't hesitate to create Jira
>> > tickets with these information if available.
>> >
>> > Last regarding 4.0.0 blockers, I don't think we need a special label.
>> The
>> > built-in and widely used priority "blocker" seems enough to capture the
>> > importance and urgency of a ticket.
>> > Since I am the release manager for the next release I will go over
>> tickets
>> > marked as blockers and reevaluate priorities if necessary.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Stamatis
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:27 AM Denys Kuzmenko 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks, Sungwoo for running the TPC-DS benchmark. Do we know if the
>> same
>> > > level of performance degradation was present in 4.0.0-alpha1?
>> > >
>> > > All: please use the `hive-4.0.0-must` label in a ticket if you think
>> it's
>> > > a show-stopper for the release.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Attila Turoczy]

Could we please give some attention to this topic? I strongly believe that
we should put in every effort to release Hive 4. The Hive community needs
to demonstrate that we are active and accomplishing exciting developments.
It is quite disheartening to note that our last major GA release was a
staggering 5 years ago on 18th May 2018! The significance of version 4.0
cannot be overstated, and we should definitely prioritize its promotion.

[image: image.png]

-Attila

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Kirti Ruge  wrote:

> I see a few tickets like HIVE-26400 which is a major milestone, are
> resolved .
> Can we reevaluate priorities of other JIRAs so that It may give us clarity
> GO/NO-GO  for 4.0.0 GA release  and its timeline?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kirti
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:27 PM Stamatis Zampetakis 
> wrote:
>
> > Regarding correctness, I think it makes sense to change default values
> and
> > possibly add a warning note when there's a known risk of wrong results.
> > Needless to say that we should try to fix as many issues as possible; we
> > still need volunteers to review open PRS.
> >
> > Performances regressions are trickier but if we have the query plans
> (CBO +
> > full) along with logs (including task counters) for fast and slow
> execution
> > we may be able to understand what happens. Don't hesitate to create Jira
> > tickets with these information if available.
> >
> > Last regarding 4.0.0 blockers, I don't think we need a special label. The
> > built-in and widely used priority "blocker" seems enough to capture the
> > importance and urgency of a ticket.
> > Since I am the release manager for the next release I will go over
> tickets
> > marked as blockers and reevaluate priorities if necessary.
> >
> > Best,
> > Stamatis
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:27 AM Denys Kuzmenko 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Sungwoo for running the TPC-DS benchmark. Do we know if the
> same
> > > level of performance degradation was present in 4.0.0-alpha1?
> > >
> > > All: please use the `hive-4.0.0-must` label in a ticket if you think
> it's
> > > a show-stopper for the release.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Kirti Ruge]

I see a few tickets like HIVE-26400 which is a major milestone, are
resolved .
Can we reevaluate priorities of other JIRAs so that It may give us clarity
GO/NO-GO  for 4.0.0 GA release  and its timeline?



Thanks,
Kirti

On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:27 PM Stamatis Zampetakis 
wrote:

> Regarding correctness, I think it makes sense to change default values and
> possibly add a warning note when there's a known risk of wrong results.
> Needless to say that we should try to fix as many issues as possible; we
> still need volunteers to review open PRS.
>
> Performances regressions are trickier but if we have the query plans (CBO +
> full) along with logs (including task counters) for fast and slow execution
> we may be able to understand what happens. Don't hesitate to create Jira
> tickets with these information if available.
>
> Last regarding 4.0.0 blockers, I don't think we need a special label. The
> built-in and widely used priority "blocker" seems enough to capture the
> importance and urgency of a ticket.
> Since I am the release manager for the next release I will go over tickets
> marked as blockers and reevaluate priorities if necessary.
>
> Best,
> Stamatis
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:27 AM Denys Kuzmenko 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Sungwoo for running the TPC-DS benchmark. Do we know if the same
> > level of performance degradation was present in 4.0.0-alpha1?
> >
> > All: please use the `hive-4.0.0-must` label in a ticket if you think it's
> > a show-stopper for the release.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Stamatis Zampetakis]

Regarding correctness, I think it makes sense to change default values and
possibly add a warning note when there's a known risk of wrong results.
Needless to say that we should try to fix as many issues as possible; we
still need volunteers to review open PRS.

Performances regressions are trickier but if we have the query plans (CBO +
full) along with logs (including task counters) for fast and slow execution
we may be able to understand what happens. Don't hesitate to create Jira
tickets with these information if available.

Last regarding 4.0.0 blockers, I don't think we need a special label. The
built-in and widely used priority "blocker" seems enough to capture the
importance and urgency of a ticket.
Since I am the release manager for the next release I will go over tickets
marked as blockers and reevaluate priorities if necessary.

Best,
Stamatis

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 10:27 AM Denys Kuzmenko  wrote:

> Thanks, Sungwoo for running the TPC-DS benchmark. Do we know if the same
> level of performance degradation was present in 4.0.0-alpha1?
>
> All: please use the `hive-4.0.0-must` label in a ticket if you think it's
> a show-stopper for the release.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Denys Kuzmenko]

Thanks, Sungwoo for running the TPC-DS benchmark. Do we know if the same level 
of performance degradation was present in 4.0.0-alpha1?

All: please use the `hive-4.0.0-must` label in a ticket if you think it's a 
show-stopper for the release.

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Sungwoo Park]

For correctness, we can merge a few pull requests and change the default values 
of a few configuration parameters, so that we can get the correct results for 
the TPC-DS benchmark.


Another issue is a performance regression when compared with Hive 3.1. I ran the 
TPC-DS benchmark using a scale factor of 10TB. Our internal testing shows that 
the current snapshot of Hive 4 is 1.5 times slower than Hive 3.1. Here is a 
summary of our internal testing on a cluster with 13 nodes, each with 256GB 
memory and 6 SSDs.


Systems compared:

1. Trino 417 (using Java 11)
2. Hive 3.1 (a fork maintained by us)
3. Hive 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT (as of February 2023)

Results:

1. Trino 417
total execution time = 9633 seconds, geometric mean = 28.19 seconds
query 21 returns wrong results.
query 23 returns wrong results.
query 72 fails (with query.max-memory = 1440GB)

2. Hive 3.1
total execution time = 9900 seconds, geometric mean = 31.67 seconds 
All the 99 queries return correct results.


3. Hive 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT
total execution time = 10584 seconds, geometric mean = 43.72 seconds
All the 99 queries return correct results.

Around the summer 2020, Hive 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT was noticeably faster than Hive 3.1, 
although a few queries returned wrong results.


Not sure about how to fix the performance regression. Git bisecting is not a 
practical option because 1) until last year, building 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT was not 
smooth because of Tez dependency; 2) loadig 10TB TPC-DS data for each commit is 
too much an overhead.


I am thinking about comparing DAG plans from Hive 3.1 and 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT for 
those queries that exhibit performance regression. If you have any suggestion, 
please let me know.


--- Sungwoo

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:


Many thanks for running tests with 4.0.0 Sungwoo; it is invaluable
help for getting out a stable Hive 4.

I will review https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26968 in the
coming weeks; I have assigned myself as reviewer in the PR.

Can some other people (committers or not) help in reviewing the
remaining TPC-DS blockers for which we have a PR?

Reminder: Good non-binding reviews are important and much appreciated
by the community. They are also among the important metrics for
becoming a Hive committer/PMC [1].

Best,
Stamatis

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/BecomingACommitter

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:07?PM Sungwoo Park  wrote:


Hello,

I would like to expand the list of blockers with HIVE-27138 [1] which fixes NPE
on mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q.

Currently mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q is tested with MapReduce execution
engine and shows no problem. However, it shows a few problems when tested with
Tez execution engine. HIVE-27138 is the first fix found after analyzing
mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q, and Seonggon will create a couple more tickets
later.

In the meanwhile, it would be great if someone could review pull requests for
subtasks in HIVE-26654. (I moved to HIVE-26654 three tickets that I previously
requested code review for.)

Best,

--- Sungwoo
  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-27138

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:


Hi Kirti,

Thanks for bringing up this topic.

The master branch already has many new features; we don't need to wait for
more to cut a GA.

The main criterion for going GA is stability thus I would consider
regressions as the only blockers for the release.

If I recall well the only regressions discovered so far are some problems
with TPC-DS queries so basically HIVE-26654 [1].

I will let others chime in to include more tickets if necessary.

Best,
Stamatis

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26654


On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:02?AM Kirti Ruge  wrote:


Hello Hive Dev,

It has been about 6 months since Hive-4.0-alpha-2 was released in Nov 2022.
Would it be a good time to discuss about HIVE-4.0 GA  release to the
community ? Can we have discussion on the new features/jdk support versions
which we want to publish as part of 4.0 GA , timeframe of release.


Thanks,
Kirti

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Stamatis Zampetakis]

Many thanks for running tests with 4.0.0 Sungwoo; it is invaluable
help for getting out a stable Hive 4.

I will review https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26968 in the
coming weeks; I have assigned myself as reviewer in the PR.

Can some other people (committers or not) help in reviewing the
remaining TPC-DS blockers for which we have a PR?

Reminder: Good non-binding reviews are important and much appreciated
by the community. They are also among the important metrics for
becoming a Hive committer/PMC [1].

Best,
Stamatis

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/BecomingACommitter

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:07 PM Sungwoo Park  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to expand the list of blockers with HIVE-27138 [1] which fixes 
> NPE
> on mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q.
>
> Currently mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q is tested with MapReduce execution
> engine and shows no problem. However, it shows a few problems when tested with
> Tez execution engine. HIVE-27138 is the first fix found after analyzing
> mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q, and Seonggon will create a couple more tickets
> later.
>
> In the meanwhile, it would be great if someone could review pull requests for
> subtasks in HIVE-26654. (I moved to HIVE-26654 three tickets that I previously
> requested code review for.)
>
> Best,
>
> --- Sungwoo
>   [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-27138
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:
>
> > Hi Kirti,
> >
> > Thanks for bringing up this topic.
> >
> > The master branch already has many new features; we don't need to wait for
> > more to cut a GA.
> >
> > The main criterion for going GA is stability thus I would consider
> > regressions as the only blockers for the release.
> >
> > If I recall well the only regressions discovered so far are some problems
> > with TPC-DS queries so basically HIVE-26654 [1].
> >
> > I will let others chime in to include more tickets if necessary.
> >
> > Best,
> > Stamatis
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26654
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:02?AM Kirti Ruge  wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Hive Dev,
> >>
> >> It has been about 6 months since Hive-4.0-alpha-2 was released in Nov 2022.
> >> Would it be a good time to discuss about HIVE-4.0 GA  release to the
> >> community ? Can we have discussion on the new features/jdk support versions
> >> which we want to publish as part of 4.0 GA , timeframe of release.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kirti
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Sungwoo Park]

Hello,

I would like to expand the list of blockers with HIVE-27138 [1] which fixes NPE 
on mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q.


Currently mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q is tested with MapReduce execution 
engine and shows no problem. However, it shows a few problems when tested with 
Tez execution engine. HIVE-27138 is the first fix found after analyzing 
mapjoin_filter_on_outerjoin.q, and Seonggon will create a couple more tickets 
later.


In the meanwhile, it would be great if someone could review pull requests for 
subtasks in HIVE-26654. (I moved to HIVE-26654 three tickets that I previously 
requested code review for.)


Best,

--- Sungwoo
 [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-27138

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:


Hi Kirti,

Thanks for bringing up this topic.

The master branch already has many new features; we don't need to wait for
more to cut a GA.

The main criterion for going GA is stability thus I would consider
regressions as the only blockers for the release.

If I recall well the only regressions discovered so far are some problems
with TPC-DS queries so basically HIVE-26654 [1].

I will let others chime in to include more tickets if necessary.

Best,
Stamatis

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26654


On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:02?AM Kirti Ruge  wrote:


Hello Hive Dev,

It has been about 6 months since Hive-4.0-alpha-2 was released in Nov 2022.
Would it be a good time to discuss about HIVE-4.0 GA  release to the
community ? Can we have discussion on the new features/jdk support versions
which we want to publish as part of 4.0 GA , timeframe of release.


Thanks,
Kirti

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Stamatis Zampetakis]

Hi Kirti,

>From the tickets you shared, the only one that I would consider a blocker
is HIVE-26220.

Assuming that we fix HIVE-26220 in the coming weeks can someone from
downstream projects test things out based on the nightly builds?

If nobody is willing to test the fix for HIVE-26220 then we could lower the
priority till there is actual interest.

Best,
Stamatis

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 9:24 AM Kirti Ruge  wrote:

> Thanks Stamatis !!!
> I see below JIRAs marked with label hive-4.0.0-must <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels+%3D+hive-4.0.0-must>
> and in unresolved status.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=564 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=564>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kirti
>
> HIVE-26400 
> Provide docker images for Hive - PR in review
> https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/3448 <
> https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/3448>
>
> HIVE-26537 
> Deprecate older APIs in the HMS. -  PR in review
> https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/3599
>
> HIVE-26220 
> Shade & relocate dependencies in hive-exec to avoid conflicting with
> downstream projects
>
> HIVE-26644 
> Introduce auto sizing in HMS -   stale PR.
> https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/3683
>
>
>
> > On 10-Mar-2023, at 10:20 PM, Stamatis Zampetakis 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kirti,
> >
> > Thanks for bringing up this topic.
> >
> > The master branch already has many new features; we don't need to wait
> for
> > more to cut a GA.
> >
> > The main criterion for going GA is stability thus I would consider
> > regressions as the only blockers for the release.
> >
> > If I recall well the only regressions discovered so far are some problems
> > with TPC-DS queries so basically HIVE-26654 [1].
> >
> > I will let others chime in to include more tickets if necessary.
> >
> > Best,
> > Stamatis
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26654
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:02 AM Kirti Ruge 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Hive Dev,
> >>
> >> It has been about 6 months since Hive-4.0-alpha-2 was released in Nov
> 2022.
> >> Would it be a good time to discuss about HIVE-4.0 GA  release to the
> >> community ? Can we have discussion on the new features/jdk support
> versions
> >> which we want to publish as part of 4.0 GA , timeframe of release.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kirti
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Kirti Ruge]

Thanks Stamatis !!!
I see below JIRAs marked with label hive-4.0.0-must 
 and in 
unresolved status.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=564 



Thanks,
Kirti

HIVE-26400 
Provide docker images for Hive - PR in review 
https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/3448 


HIVE-26537 
Deprecate older APIs in the HMS. -  PR in review 
https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/3599

HIVE-26220 
Shade & relocate dependencies in hive-exec to avoid conflicting with downstream 
projects

HIVE-26644 
Introduce auto sizing in HMS -   stale PR. 
https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/3683



> On 10-Mar-2023, at 10:20 PM, Stamatis Zampetakis  wrote:
> 
> Hi Kirti,
> 
> Thanks for bringing up this topic.
> 
> The master branch already has many new features; we don't need to wait for
> more to cut a GA.
> 
> The main criterion for going GA is stability thus I would consider
> regressions as the only blockers for the release.
> 
> If I recall well the only regressions discovered so far are some problems
> with TPC-DS queries so basically HIVE-26654 [1].
> 
> I will let others chime in to include more tickets if necessary.
> 
> Best,
> Stamatis
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26654
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:02 AM Kirti Ruge  wrote:
> 
>> Hello Hive Dev,
>> 
>> It has been about 6 months since Hive-4.0-alpha-2 was released in Nov 2022.
>> Would it be a good time to discuss about HIVE-4.0 GA  release to the
>> community ? Can we have discussion on the new features/jdk support versions
>> which we want to publish as part of 4.0 GA , timeframe of release.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kirti

Re: [DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Stamatis Zampetakis]

Hi Kirti,

Thanks for bringing up this topic.

The master branch already has many new features; we don't need to wait for
more to cut a GA.

The main criterion for going GA is stability thus I would consider
regressions as the only blockers for the release.

If I recall well the only regressions discovered so far are some problems
with TPC-DS queries so basically HIVE-26654 [1].

I will let others chime in to include more tickets if necessary.

Best,
Stamatis

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-26654


On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:02 AM Kirti Ruge  wrote:

> Hello Hive Dev,
>
> It has been about 6 months since Hive-4.0-alpha-2 was released in Nov 2022.
> Would it be a good time to discuss about HIVE-4.0 GA  release to the
> community ? Can we have discussion on the new features/jdk support versions
> which we want to publish as part of 4.0 GA , timeframe of release.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kirti

[DISCUSS] HIVE 4.0 GA Release Proposal

[Kirti Ruge]

Hello Hive Dev,

It has been about 6 months since Hive-4.0-alpha-2 was released in Nov 2022.
Would it be a good time to discuss about HIVE-4.0 GA  release to the community 
? Can we have discussion on the new features/jdk support versions which we want 
to publish as part of 4.0 GA , timeframe of release.


Thanks,
Kirti