I was hoping that Hadoop would fix more of its transitive CVEs in 3.4.2... On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 2:39 PM Istvan Toth <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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> > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > -- *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> ------------------------------ ------------------------------
