We should update gson, netty, jetty (and perhaps jackson ?) to the latest applicable versions berfore release. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7697 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7699 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7698
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:40 PM Istvan Toth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > -- *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> ------------------------------ ------------------------------
