If we waited for the Hadoop 3.4.2 release, we should use it : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7696
I'm gonna run an OWASP scan to see if there are any easily fixed CVEs. Istvan On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:08 AM Viraj Jasani <[email protected]> wrote: > Unless there are any blockers, planning to prepare RC sometime next week. > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:30 PM Viraj Jasani <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hadoop release is done. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:40 PM Istvan Toth <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Perhaps consider waiting for Hadoop 3.4.2. > >> It's already in the RC phase. > >> Stoty > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Viraj Jasani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras > >> (Segment > >> > scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation perf > >> > improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0 release > >> next > >> > week. > >> > > >> > Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate > into > >> > 5.3.0 release. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth > <[email protected] > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thank you Viraj. > >> > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the 2.6.3 > >> > > update. > >> > > I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with 2.6. > >> > (though > >> > > I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update) > >> > > I know you are investigating this. > >> > > > >> > > Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681 for > >> the > >> > > 2.5.12 update. > >> > > > >> > > I'm not sure about updating the default. > >> > > My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release line, > >> > which > >> > > is 2.5. > >> > > On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the stable > to > >> > 2.6 > >> > > in the not too distant future, > >> > > and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to change > the > >> > > default in a patch release. > >> > > > >> > > I don't have a strong opinion either way. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but > please > >> > > remind > >> > > > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of improvements, > >> > features > >> > > > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release. > >> > > > > >> > > > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have had > >> > recent > >> > > > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone like to > >> > > > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch? > >> > > > > >> > > > We can also use 2.6 profile by default. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth > >> > <[email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > I'll start the thread, Viraj. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani < > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module for > >> 5.3.0 > >> > > > > > release. > >> > > > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus and > >> work > >> > on > >> > > > > > removing the profile? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop > >> support > >> > for > >> > > > it > >> > > > > in > >> > > > > > > 5.3. > >> > > > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep it as > >> the > >> > > last > >> > > > > > > release, or just remove it now. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0 > >> > > > pre-patches > >> > > > > > are > >> > > > > > > > ready, > >> > > > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as > >> > > blocking, > >> > > > > > > rather > >> > > > > > > > as finishing > >> > > > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried about > >> the > >> > > > amount > >> > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for 5.3.0. > >> > > > > Backtracking > >> > > > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward > >> > > compatibility > >> > > > > etc > >> > > > > > > might become painful. > >> > > > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support and > >> > > spotless > >> > > > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include 5.3. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final > >> decision? :) > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth > >> > > > > <[email protected] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for 5.3. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop > support > >> > for > >> > > it > >> > > > > in > >> > > > > > >> 5.3. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth < > >> [email protected] > >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 > is > >> > > > released > >> > > > > so > >> > > > > > >> far, > >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0 > >> > > > > pre-patches > >> > > > > > >> are > >> > > > > > >> > ready, > >> > > > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as > >> > > > blocking, > >> > > > > > >> rather > >> > > > > > >> > as finishing > >> > > > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with > >> HBase > >> > > > 3.0.0 > >> > > > > > >> >> release > >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed > >> for > >> > > > HBase > >> > > > > 2 > >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT? > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0 may > be > >> > > better > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > >> > marketing. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and 2->3 > >> > > > transition > >> > > > > > is > >> > > > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks > >> > > > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and 2.x > from > >> > the > >> > > > same > >> > > > > > >> > Phoenix branch, > >> > > > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to support > >> HBase > >> > 2.x > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > 3.x > >> > > > > > >> > from the same branch, > >> > > > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain separate > >> > > branches > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0 > >> > > > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support for > >> it > >> > > > without > >> > > > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase 2.x, > >> they > >> > > are > >> > > > > just > >> > > > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs > >> > > > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration attempts. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > For now, > >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be > >> > really > >> > > > > > helpful > >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish > >> we > >> > > could > >> > > > > > have > >> > > > > > >> >> done > >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it > at > >> > > least. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern. > >> > > > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless > reformat > >> > now. > >> > > > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ, and we > >> can > >> > > > follow > >> > > > > > up > >> > > > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting to > >> > > > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but > >> > > > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we > need > >> to > >> > > rip > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > >> > band-aid off at some point. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we > merge > >> > them > >> > > > > now, > >> > > > > > >> then > >> > > > > > >> > at least this will be both in > >> > > > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the way > >> when > >> > > > > > >> backporting. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > Istvan > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani < > >> > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan! > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 > is > >> > > > released > >> > > > > > so > >> > > > > > >> >> far, > >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this. > >> > > > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still believe > it > >> > > makes > >> > > > > more > >> > > > > > >> >> sense > >> > > > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3 branch. > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> A couple of proposals: > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we > should > >> > also > >> > > > > > create > >> > > > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch for > 5.x > >> > > > > releases. > >> > > > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev > >> version. > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with > >> HBase > >> > > > 3.0.0 > >> > > > > > >> >> release > >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed > >> for > >> > > > HBase > >> > > > > 2 > >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT? > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless > >> reformat. > >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching, otherwise > it's > >> > > just a > >> > > > > lot > >> > > > > > >> of > >> > > > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice. > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0 > >> release? > >> > > For > >> > > > > now, > >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be > >> > really > >> > > > > > helpful > >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish > >> we > >> > > could > >> > > > > > have > >> > > > > > >> >> done > >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it > at > >> > > least. > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after PHOENIX-7587 > >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587> > and > >> > > > > > PHOENIX-7573 > >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573> > are > >> > > merged, > >> > > > > > >> >> hopefully > >> > > > > > >> >> within a week. > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth > >> > > > > > <[email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support. > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is out, > >> but > >> > > then > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > >> >> should > >> > > > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a > >> > > > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly > after > >> > 3.0. > >> > > > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish) > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation patches by > >> me > >> > and > >> > > > > > Villo, > >> > > > > > >> >> which > >> > > > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will > >> > > > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been waiting > >> for > >> > > > review > >> > > > > > for > >> > > > > > >> >> some > >> > > > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them, > >> > > > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their current > >> > > iteration > >> > > > > was > >> > > > > > >> >> already > >> > > > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo. > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035 > >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036 > >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038 > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless > >> reformat. > >> > > > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching, otherwise > >> it's > >> > > > just a > >> > > > > > >> lot of > >> > > > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice. > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding HBase > >> 3.0 > >> > > > > > preparation > >> > > > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as > >> > > > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the > >> > reformat) > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Istvan > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani < > >> > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi, > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch from > >> the > >> > > > master > >> > > > > > >> branch > >> > > > > > >> >> > > sometime next week. > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch. > While > >> > > > majority > >> > > > > > >> >> features > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to ensure > we > >> > have > >> > > a > >> > > > > > smooth > >> > > > > > >> >> > > release. > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes you > >> are > >> > > > > planning > >> > > > > > >> to > >> > > > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release. > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -- > >> > > > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > >> > > > > > >> >> > *Email*: [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> >> > 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 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------ > >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------ > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > >> > > > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > >> > > > > > >> > *Email*: [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > 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> > >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------ > >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------ > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> -- > >> > > > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > >> > > > > > >> *Email*: [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> 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> > >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------ > >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------ > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > >> > > > > *Email*: [email protected] > >> > > > > 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> > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > >> > > *Email*: [email protected] > >> > > 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> > >> > > ------------------------------ > >> > > ------------------------------ > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > >> *Email*: [email protected] > >> 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> > >> ------------------------------ > >> ------------------------------ > >> > > > -- *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer *Email*: [email protected] 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> ------------------------------ ------------------------------
