Agree to Peter above. I know quite a few projects such as Spark, Iceberg and Trino/Presto are depending on Hive 2.x and 3.x, and periodically they may need new fixes in these. Upgrading them to use 4.x seems not an option for now since the core classified artifact has been removed and the shading issue has to be solved before they can consume the new jar.
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:10 AM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Hi Team, > > My experience with the Iceberg community shows that there are some sizeable > userbase around Hive 2.x. I have seen patches, contributions to Hive 2.3.x > branches, and the tests are in much better shape there. > > I would definitely vote for EOL Hive 1.x, but until we have a stable 4.x, I > would be cautious about slashing 2.x, 3.x branches. > > Just my 2 cents. > > Peter > > On 2022. May 9., at 10:51, Alessandro Solimando > <alessandro.solima...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Stamatis, > thanks for bringing up this topic, I basically agree on everything you wrote. > > I just wanted to add that this kind of proposal might sound harsh, because in > many contexts upgrading is a complex process, but it's in nobody's interest > to keep release branches that are missing important fixes/improvements and > that might not meet the quality standards that people expect, as mentioned. > > Since we don't have yet a stable 4.x release (only alpha for now) we might > want to keep supporting the 3.x branch until the first 4.x stable release and > EOL < 3.x branches, WDYT? > > Best regards, > Alessandro > > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 23:14, Stamatis Zampetakis <zabe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> The current master has many critical bug fixes as well as important >> performance improvements that are not backported (and most likely never >> will) to the maintenance branches. >> >> Backporting changes from master usually requires adapting the code and tests >> in questions making it a non-trivial and time consuming task. >> >> The ASF bylaws require PMCs to deliver high quality software which satisfy >> certain criteria. Cutting new releases from maintenance branches with known >> critical bugs is not compliant with the ASF. >> >> CI is unstable in all maintenance branches making the quality of a release >> questionable and merging new PRs rather difficult. Enabling and running it >> frequently in all maintenance branches would require a big amount of >> resources on top of what we already need for master. >> >> History has shown that it is very difficult or impossible to properly >> maintain multiple release branches for Hive. >> >> I think it would be to the best interest of the project if the PMC decided >> to drop support for maintenance branches and focused on releasing >> exclusively from master. >> >> This mail is related to the discussion about the release cadence [1] since >> it would certainly help making Hive releases more regular. I decided to >> start a separate thread to avoid mixing multiple topics together. >> >> Looking forward to your thoughts. >> >> Best, >> Stamatis >> >> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/n245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj >> >
