Unless there is more feedback, I plan to cut branch-2 in a day or two from current master. As multiple people have suggested on this thread, we should do a 2.2 release soon. Currently there are 177 issues <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20cf%5B12310320%5D%20%3D%202.2.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC> targeted for 2.2 release. We can use branch-2 to land these patches and for additional stabilization efforts. Any volunteer for Release Manager driving 2.2 release?
Thanks, Ashutosh On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <hashut...@apache.org> wrote: > I hear what you are saying. Lets begin with 3 concerns: > > - How will we keep the community motivated on fixing both master and > branch-2? > Until we do a stable release from master, stable releases can come only > from branch-2. If a contributor wants to see their fix reach to users on a > stable line quickly they would have to have a fix on branch-2. Also, a > release manager can pick whatever fixes she wants, so even if contributor > doesn't commit it on branch-2, a release manger who wants to do a release > containing a set of fixes thats always possible. > > - *Harder cherry-picks between master and branch-2*. > That is certainly possible. But hope is we want to keep branch-2 stable, > so we don't backport large features which may run into this issue. Smaller > focussed bug fix backport should be possible. > > > - *Removal of MR2 on the master branch*. > This is something I personally would like to see. But exact timing of it > will be decided by community. I am certainly not saying that as soon as > branch-2 is created, lets remove MR2 on master. > > I would also say that in the end ASF is volunteer organization, we cant > force people to adopt one branch or another. Its upto the contributors what > jiras they work on and when and where they commit it. > By not creating a branch-2 only thing we can guarantee is that rate of > development on master to remain slow because we don't want to start doing > backward incompatible changes without explicitly acknowledging that. > > Thanks, > Ashutosh > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> Hey Ashutosh, thanks for soliciting feedback on this. >> >> I like the idea you're proposing; maintaining compatibility and at the >> same time adding newer features to >> Hive consumes a lot of development time and effort. >> >> However, I think some users and companies have just started to use Hive >> 2.x >> branch as their main major upgrade on Hive >> (possible due to waiting for stabilization and testing upgrades), but >> cutting this major branch that just has 1 year of life >> might make us look like we will forget about the quality of Hive 2.x as we >> did with branch-1. >> >> Hive 1.x latest version was 1.2, and its development stopped because new >> features on Hive 2.x >> Hive 2.x latest version is 2.1, and we want to create Hive 3.x because of >> newer features and incompatibilities. >> Will Hive 3.x have the same future after 3.1 is released? >> >> What I'm also concerned is about these three things: >> >> - *Branch-2 quality commitment*. >> How will we keep the community motivated on fixing both master and >> branch-2? >> - *Harder cherry-picks between master and branch-2*. >> Because master will be incompatible by nature, then cherry-picks to >> branch-2 will be harder. >> - *Removal of MR2 on the master branch*. >> This was marked as deprecated just last year, but MR2 is still an >> engine >> that is used by several users. >> >> I accept that the end of life of major versions will come at some point, >> and these concerns will expire, >> but Hive 2.x is kind of young, isn't it? >> >> Should we try to stabilize the Hive 2.x line first, and have a few more >> releases before starting to work on Hive 3.0? >> Should we add more test coverage to Hive jenkins jobs to validate Hive 2.x >> quality? >> Should we agree on a date about when we should drop community support on >> Hive versions to let users know about this? >> >> Again, I like your proposal, but I'm afraid that users who just upgraded >> to >> 2.x won't have any more features and improvements >> because they will be developed on 3.0. >> >> - Sergio >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan < >> ashutosh.chau...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> > The way it helps shedding debt is because dev can now do refactoring >> > without fear of breaking some rarely used features. The way that helps >> for >> > adding feature faster is since codebase is lean and easier to reason >> about >> > its much easier to add new features. >> > >> > More importantly though, it also helps users because we are setting the >> > expectation from dev community. They can expect that future releases of >> 2.x >> > to be backward compatible. At the same time whenever they decide to >> upgrade >> > they only need to test their application once against 3.x as oppose to >> > continuous breakage of one form or another if we continue to make >> > incompatible changes in master without branching for 2.x >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ashutosh >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Also i dont follow how we remove >> > > >> > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com >> > > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thejas.n...@gmail.com');>> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> +1 >> > > >> There are some features that are incomplete and what I would not >> > > recommend >> > > >> for any real production use.The 'legacy authorization mode' is a >> great >> > > >> example of that - >> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/Hive+Defaul >> > > >> t+Authorization+-+Legacy+Mode >> > > >> . It is inherently insecure mode that nobody should be using. >> > > >> >> > > >> There is also potential to cleanup of the thrift api. However, >> there >> > are >> > > >> many users of this api, we would need to go the deprecation then >> > remove >> > > >> after couple of releases route or so for that. >> > > >> >> > > >> I am sure there are many other candidates. We will have to evaluate >> > each >> > > >> of >> > > >> those features on the risk/benefit of keeping them and arriving at >> a >> > > >> decision. >> > > >> >> > > >> Also, +1 on getting a 2.2 release out before we branch. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan < >> > hashut...@apache.org >> > > >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hashut...@apache.org');>> >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > Hi all, >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Hive project has come a long way. With wide-spread adoption also >> > comes >> > > >> > expectations. Expectation of being backward compatible and not >> > > breaking >> > > >> > things. However that doesn't come free of cost and results in >> lot of >> > > >> legacy >> > > >> > code which can't be refactored without fear of breaking things. >> As a >> > > >> result >> > > >> > project has accumulated lot of debt over time. At the same time >> > there >> > > >> are >> > > >> > also lot of features which have seen little uptake. We may want >> to >> > > drop >> > > >> > some of those. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > In order to move forward and shed that debt we may need a major >> > > version >> > > >> > release which allows us to make backward incompatible changes and >> > drop >> > > >> > rarely used features. At the same time there are lots of users >> which >> > > are >> > > >> > consuming currently released 2.1 , 2.2 branches and expect them >> to >> > > stay >> > > >> on >> > > >> > it for some time. So, I propose that we create branch-2 from >> current >> > > tip >> > > >> > and do future 2.x releases from that branch and keep it backward >> > > >> > compatible. This will allow devs to land breaking changes on >> master >> > > and >> > > >> > pave way to release hive 3.0 in future. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Ofcourse, each specific incompatible change and feature drop >> even >> > on >> > > >> > master need to be evaluated on its own merit on corresponding >> jira. >> > > This >> > > >> > email is just a solicitation of feedback for creating branch-2 >> and >> > > >> allowing >> > > >> > breaking changes in master. Thoughts? >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks, >> > > >> > Ashutosh >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > One of the challenges of the developers conducting the risk-benefit >> > > > analysis are that the developers are mostly focused on new features, >> > but >> > > > there are deployments of hive that are 5+ years old and people that >> > rely >> > > on >> > > > the features are not on the mailing list. >> > > > >> > > > For example I developed and use this frequently: >> > > > >> > > > https://community.hortonworks.com/articles/8861/apache-hive- >> > > > groovy-udf-examples.html >> > > > >> > > > My career went away from hive for a while. I was quite surprised to >> > find >> > > > out the cli->beeline it was more or less decided not to port it. I >> > > learned >> > > > of this the first time I was forced to work in a hive server only >> > > > environment and it did not work. >> > > > >> > > > Now I have to go and spend time adding this back so I don't have to >> > work >> > > > around it not being there. >> > > > >> > > > What we should do continue/doing is making code that is modular we >> need >> > > to >> > > > break hard dependencies like ThriftSerde or OrcSerde being "native" >> and >> > > > having to be linked to the metastore move them out into proper >> > > submodules. >> > > > There is too much code that only works for one implementation of a >> > serde >> > > > etc. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > I would like a timeline to understand this. It sounds as if master is >> not >> > > releasable currently, so already broken in a way. We make a branch and >> > > aggreasively break it more? >> > > >> > > Im not following what makes this branching policy makes adding >> features >> > > faster or how it helps shed debt faster. >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check >> > than >> > > usual. >> > > >> > >> > >
