Hmm.. should we release these first, and then cut branch-2? Otherwise during the releases, the patches for 2.2/2.3 will need to go to 3 (4?) places (master, branch-2, branch-2.2, branch-2.3?). There’s no rush to cut the branch if everything in 2.2/2.3 has to go to 3.0 anyway.
On 17/3/22, 13:53, "Pengcheng Xiong" <pxi...@apache.org> wrote: >I would like to work as the Release Manager if possible. As Owen points >out, he is working on 2.2 and I will work on 2.3. Thanks. > >On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <hashut...@apache.org> >wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >>
