+u...@phoenix.apache.org I wouldn't suggest making any strict policies for ourselves and doing any promise to the user on the support of EOL HBase versions. As it may become a burden down the line for us and then sometimes require an exemption if we can't make a feature work with a certain release.
IMHO, it can be on the basis of consensus on a mailing list and willingness to support the development and release of the respective version a user/s is interested in. Though, I can agree that it is good to remain pro-active for these consensuses to avoid last-minute surprise for the user who has been waiting for a long on the release. Regards, Ankit Singhal On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:59 PM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand, let me rephrase > > So we drop support right after we release a Phoenix minor version, > if the Phoenix release date is more than a year after the HBase EOL date ? > > That sounds fine to me. > > How about patch releases ? > I feel that we should not drop Hbase release support in a patch release. > i.e if we release 5.1.2, 5.1.2, etc those should keep support for all HBase > versions that 5.1.0 supported. > > regards > Istvan > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:23 AM Xinyi Yan <yanxi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > IMO, we should consider one year grace period plus one minor release? For > > example, if we have a new 4.17.0 release in September 2021, we should not > > support HBase 1.3(was EOL in Aug 2020) since it passes one year grace > > period and one more release support. This means we will include HBase 1.4 > > and 2.2 support for the next releases(4.17.0 and 5.2.0). As Istvan > > mentioned above, dropping HBase 1.3 support would make simplification, at > > least I feel we should drop the support for HBase 1.3 for the next minor > > release. > > > > What do people think about this? One minor release plus one year grace > > period? > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:26 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I'd request that we keep hbase-2.2 support around for a while longer. > If > > > we drop that, it's going to cause us some major headache whereas I'd > > > rather see us able to keep pushing our dayjob efforts directly into > > > upstream. > > > > > > On 1/28/21 11:56 PM, Viraj Jasani wrote: > > > > +1(non-binding) to EOLing the support for HBase 1.3 and 2.1 at least > > > since > > > > both were EOLed last year (1.4 and 2.2 can also be dropped). > > > > > > > > Moreover, b/ 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 we have some compat issue in IA.Private > > > class > > > > (we need some utility from HStore which is refactored in 2.4.1), > hence > > we > > > > will need new compat module to support 2.4.1+ releases in Phoenix > > 5.2.0+ > > > > releases mostly. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 6:54 AM, Geoffrey Jacoby <gjac...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> +1. Following 4.16 and 5.1's releases I'd suggest EOLing support for > > > HBase > > > >> 1.3, 1.4, 2.1 and 2.2, I believe all of which have been EOLed by the > > > HBase > > > >> community. All of those versions also require special compatibility > > lib > > > >> support currently. > > > >> > > > >> Geoffrey > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:35 PM Xinyi Yan <yanxi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm thinking to drop the number of supported HBase versions for > > future > > > >>> releases. For example, the HBase 1.3 was EOM'd in August 2020, do > we > > > >> still > > > >>> consider support it for 4.17.0? Similarly, our current master > branch > > > also > > > >>> supports EOM'd HBase version. If phoenix users already upgraded > their > > > >>> HBase, we should not spend time supporting these old versions IMO. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think we should do it after 4.16.0 and 5.1.0, thoughts? > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Xinyi > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
