[DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Hello! Now that we have a working solution in master for handling different HBase minor versions, I think that we should think about applying the same template to 4.x., and unifying the 4.x-HBase-1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 branches. Are there any intentional differences between the branches, apart from ha

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Sounds like a good idea to me. On 2/6/20 8:40 AM, Istvan Toth wrote: Hello! Now that we have a working solution in master for handling different HBase minor versions, I think that we should think about applying the same template to 4.x., and unifying the 4.x-HBase-1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 branches. A

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

If unification could be done, that would be great. (I apologize that I haven't had the bandwidth over the past week or two to take a close look at the work Istvan has been doing to unify the 5.x branches -- as one who spends too much time cherry-picking I very much appreciate this effort! :-) ) I

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Thanks for the feedback, Geoffrey. I took the lazy option of just creating compatibility methods to paper over the HBase API changes (emulate the latest version) when we are calling into HBase. For the APIs implemented by Phoenix, I added compatibility superclasses. So I expect that we will be ab

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Created PHOENIX-5721 to track this. On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:21 AM István Tóth wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, Geoffrey. > > I took the lazy option of just creating compatibility methods to paper > over the HBase API changes (emulate the la

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Now I have an unpolished version of the unified 4.x branch at https://github.com/stoty/phoenix/tree/PHOENIX-5721 It takes the same approach as the master branch, though there are a bit more differences to hide in the versions. I need to finish the assembly stuff, go over once more the changes, a

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Istvan, The HBase community has been on the verge of EOLing 1.3 for some time now -- are there significant gains or simplification if we either end 1.3 support in Phoenix before PHOENIX-5721 goes in, or alternately, don't include it in the unified profile since it will be EOLed in the not-too-dist

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Geoffrey, Absolutely. 80% of this patch is dealing with 1.3. 1.4 vs 1.5 affects two or three java files. My game plan is to submit two different patches, a small one for 1.4 and 1.5 support, and a bigger one other that adds 1.3, so that it can be reverted easily after 1.3 is dropped. I think tha

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Since you have already done this great work, and 1.3 isn’t dead yet, and won’t be “this year”, and it serves as an example of how to bring in entire new features on later code lines, perhaps it should go in. Just my 0.02. > On Feb 19, 2020, at 10:39 AM, Istvan Toth wrote: > > Geoffrey, > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Thanks Andrew, I like that solution. I've added the "final" PRs and patches to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5721 , they are ready for review. On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:01 PM Andrew Purtell wrote: > Since you have already done this great work, and 1.3 isn’t dead yet, and > won’t

Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches

Left a couple of minor requests to fix (no consequence changes -- comments, whitespace), which you can just fix on commit. Great work, Istvan. Any of y'all want to look before Istvan merges it? On 2/27/20 4:58 AM, Istvan Toth wrote: Thanks Andrew, I like that solution. I've added the "final"