Hi Folks, I strongly believe that the 4.1 release should include JDK-17 support, as it has been a key feature we’ve been planning for a while. JDK-17 is a compelling reason for users to upgrade, whereas other features, though significant, might not be enough to drive widespread adoption.
If JDK-17 integration requires additional time and we need an immediate release, we could consider a 4.0.2 bug-fix release next month. This could include all major bugs along with some safe & significant improvements. Following that, we could target a 4.1 release in 1–2 months with JDK-17 support as its highlight. That said, I still feel strongly that the 4.1 release should include JDK-17. Best, Ayush On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 at 13:40, Butao Zhang <butaozha...@163.com> wrote: > Thanks all, > > JDK17 is a really big feature, and we should carefully evaluate > whether this feature should be included in this 4.1.0 release. Hope to have > other folks to share their advice. > BTW, i want to cut the new branch 4.1.0 next week. If you want > to include some tickets into 4.1.0, please add hive-4.1.0-must label in > the JIRA. Some open tickets for 4.1.0 list in [1]. > > [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-28669?jql=status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20hive-4.1.0-must > > > Thanks, > Butao Zhang > ---- Replied Message ---- > From Stamatis Zampetakis<zabe...@gmail.com> <undefined> > Date 12/16/2024 17:33 > To <dev@hive.apache.org> <dev@hive.apache.org> > Subject Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Hive 4.1.x release > The master branch has enough content to justify a release and make > many end-users happy. The naming depends (4.1.0, 4.0.2, 5.0.0) on the > actual content and without doing an exhaustive check I feel that if we > release now we should do a minor bump i.e., 4.1.0. If we start > compiling with JDK17, it is probably an important breaking change thus > I feel that it deserves a major version bump (i.e., 5.0.0). Just to be > clear, compiling and running with JDK17 are two very different topics > as other people also highlighted in the respective thread. > > In other words, we can cut and make a release whenever we want > (assuming that master is not broken). The version identifier will and > should depend on the content of the release branch. > > Best, > Stamatis > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 10:13 AM lisoda <lis...@yeah.net> wrote: > > > I agree with Butao that since the community has previously promised that > jdk17 will be supported in 4.1.0, it would be best if we keep that promise. > But maybe we can go ahead and release a 4.0.2 version?And then wait for > HIVE-28665 to be merged before releasing a 4.1.0 version? > > > > > > > > > At 2024-12-13 10:33:47, "Butao Zhang" <zhangbu...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks Stamatis for your insightful suggestion! I basically agree with > you, and what you said is also what i have been thinking recently. > > However, i think we've had a lot of discussion about the release of jdk17 > features in version Hive 4.1.x. At some point, many community users will > expect Hive 4.1.x to inlcude jdk17 features. For example, we have some > disscussion in Apache iceberg about the Hive support, especially the which > JDK supporting in Hive > https://lists.apache.org/thread/jfcqfw9vhq4j7h0kwnlf338jgyzcq8s4. > BTW, Apache iceberg has been used Jdk11&JDK17 since 1.7.x, so we can not > upgrade Iceberg dependency in Hive if we can not complete the JDK17 upgrade > (HIVE-28665). > > Since JDK17 is a major feature, if we can not include it in Hive4.1.0, > then we also can not include it in Hive 4.1.1 ->4.1.x. User must wait for > another big release, e.g. 4.2.0, but I am concerned that this big release > 4.2.0 will come too late and affect the use of community users(Apache > iceberg or other OSS which need the Hive with high jdk version). > > I see that JDK-17(HIVE-26473) is under active review, and it seems that it > does not have big problem. So i want to wait a short time to complete this > feature, maybe two weeks or one month? Meantime, we can check if there are > any other PR(label hive-4.1.0-must) ) that need to be added to this version. > Of course, if we find some major issues when reviewing JDK-17(HIVE-26473), > we don't have to wait for it, and Hive4.1 branch will be cut soon. > > Thanks, > Butao Zhang > > On 2024/12/12 13:14:16 Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > > Thanks for volunteering Butao! > > As usual I have a slightly different perspective regarding the scope > for the release. If there are no regressions or other serious blockers > in the current master we could cut the release ASAP. We don't need to > delay the release for getting new features in. Once JDK-17 (or any > other kind of major feature) is ready we can merge it to master and > cut a new release (that being 4.2, 4.3, 5.0 or whatever makes sense at > that point). Nobody will complain if we get a shiny new release out > really soon :) > > Best, > Stamatis > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 1:00 PM Akshat m <akshatats...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Team, > > Thanks for the productive discussion! > I’d like to provide a quick update on JDK-17. The initial review comments > have been addressed, and to stay aligned with ongoing upstream changes, > we’ve rebased the PR onto the latest master. After the recent rebase, we > did encounter multiple test failures, but that issue has now been resolved > and the CI tests are running again. > > While we await a green build, we’d really appreciate it if the community > could begin the secondary review process. Your insights are invaluable, and > we start to address any new feedback as soon as possible. > > Regards > Akshat > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 11:56 AM Butao Zhang <zhangbu...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Thanks! > IMO, JDK-17(HIVE-26473) should definitely be included in this release. I > am also watching it. Maybe we can cut the branch-4.1 at some point after > the JDK-17 is finished. > > > Thanks, > Butao Zhang > > On 2024/12/11 14:22:55 Denys Kuzmenko wrote: > > Thanks Butao! > We'll support you all the way. > > ATM we should probably finalize the scope for the release (create new > label hive-4.1.0-must) and focus of getting those items prioritised. > > There is also ongoing discussion on JDK-8 and JDK-17. Would be great if we > manage to add support for JDK-17 in that release. > > >
