+ user@phoenix On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 2:17 PM, Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote:
> All Phoenix devs/users (in addition to SFDC and Cloudera), please feel > free to provide your opinions on whether you are using 4.x versions and > what your future plans look like, what category of issues you are facing > (if any) from stable features provided by Apache Phoenix 4.x. > Your opinions are most welcome and would really help the community > determine the direction of the project and release management. > > > On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 12:28 PM, Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I agree, EOL schedule is more important as we prepare to move to Phoenix >> 5. >> We are going to initiate official discussion for the upcoming big >> features e.g dual cluster support and where it fits well (as discussed over >> slack by Daniel). >> >> As far as 4.16 is concerned, IMHO we should prefer retiring it sooner >> than 4.x. Unless critical bugs are discovered, 4.16.1 could be the last >> release in 4.16 release line. Hopefully, we will have better answers in >> coming days. >> >> >> On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 11:52 AM, Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I am looking forward to less backports, and I want to use Java 8 features >>> freely as much as the next developer. >>> >>> However, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, and spell out what >>> Ankit hinted at: >>> >>> We know that SFDC is the main contributor, and probably also the single >>> largest user of Phoenix, and that they still use 4.x in production. >>> Dropping 4.x and causing SFDC to maintain their production branch >>> internally may not be in the best interest of the Apache project, >>> as it may divert SFDC resources from the public branches, and may result >>> in >>> delaying or even missing fixes there. >>> >>> I think that it would be useful to know what EOL schedule would work best >>> for SFDC, and align our plans with that. >>> >>> Perhaps Lars or someone else from SFDC could share their "official" >>> opinion, and help set an EOL schedule that works for everyone. >>> >>> Istvan >>> >>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:30 PM Ankit Singhal <ankitsingha...@gmail.com >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> > +1 for EOL'ing 4.x branches. >>> > >>> > As Josh and I, share the feedback from the same set of users, >>> > it would still be a good idea to hear from others but as it's been >>> already >>> > been 12 days since your first mail out, just a notice can be given for >>> > 72hrs(?) >>> > before dropping the next 4.x versions from JIRA and cleaning branches >>> in >>> > case any volunteer comes up to maintain these branches. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:27 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > > No objections over here! Y'all already know the work Istvan and >>> Richard >>> > > have been doing to push on Phoenix 5.1. That continues to be our >>> focus. >>> > > >>> > > On 5/7/21 11:13 AM, Viraj Jasani wrote: >>> > > > Hi, >>> > > > >>> > > > Based on HBase community's decision to EOL branch-1 after 1.7.0 >>> release >>> > > as >>> > > > per the discussion thread [1], it is inevitable that we will also >>> have >>> > to >>> > > > consider EOL of 4.x release line sometime soon. >>> > > > >>> > > > As we have discussed in the past, even though Phoenix 4.x should >>> > support >>> > > > Java 7 only (as it supports HBase 1), we are not strictly following >>> > this >>> > > > compatibility. With HBase 2 / Phoenix 5, we no longer have to worry >>> > about >>> > > > this source compatibility. Tephra also continues to support HBase >>> 1 and >>> > > > hence should follow Java 7 source compatibility rules and yet I see >>> > many >>> > > > Java 8 Optional imports in tephra-hbase-compat-2.x modules. Source >>> > > > compatibility is just one of the reasons behind HBase community's >>> > > decision >>> > > > to EOL branch-1, many other important reasons are discussed over >>> thread >>> > > [1]. >>> > > > Overall, HBase 2 is already widely adopted and deployed in >>> production >>> > and >>> > > > so should be Phoenix 5 IMHO. >>> > > > >>> > > > Given that there are no apparent functional differences b/ 4.16 and >>> > > 5.1(and >>> > > > master) except for maybe few pending forward-ports (if any), I >>> believe >>> > it >>> > > > is worth considering the ongoing 4.16 patch release as the last >>> one on >>> > > 4.x >>> > > > release line and EOL 4.16 and 4.x. >>> > > > Thoughts? >>> > > > >>> > > > 1. https://s.apache.org/rs2bk >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>