You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hive.apache.org by Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com> on 2022/07/25 14:08:36 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Hi all,
In the last exchanges there was a general consensus to EOL Hive 1.X but no
additional action.
I believe the next step would be to start a VOTE and move forward with an
official announcement.
I think it would be helpful for the end-users to know which releases are
supported and which are strongly discouraged.
The Hadoop community keeps this information in their wiki [1].
Although, I am still not convinced that we should encourage users to use
the older release lines (2.X, 3.X) we can postpone the decision for the
time being and proceed just for 1.X.
Best,
Stamatis
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/EOL+%28End-of-life%29+Release+Branches
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:51 PM Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I am happy to see so many
> people involved in the discussion.
>
> I would say that the current 4.0.0-alpha-1 is better in many aspects than
> previous stable releases, although this might be a bit subjective.
>
> I am afraid that if we keep supporting older releases it will take too
> much time till people start using the 4.x.
> Having real deployments of Hive 4 is the only way to go from alpha to
> stable releases with confidence.
>
> I checked the download statistics for Hive releases [1], [2] for the past
> month and the results show that the vast majority of downloads are for
> older releases.
> I am not posting the stats here since I am not sure if this would violate
> some policies. Hive committers can access the stats using their ASF
> credentials.
> To some degree this is expected but at the same time problematic given the
> number of open issues which affect older releases.
>
> I would definitely like to have multiple maintenance branches with high
> quality standards but I don't think there are enough active committers in
> the project to successfully maintain those.
> The https://github.com/mr3project/hive-mr3 repo may be a great fit for an
> upcoming ASF Hive release.
> However, according to what Sungwoo said, this seems more like a new
> maintenance branch rather than a continuation of Hive 3.
> Moving towards this direction would certainly require more time from all
> of us.
>
> Lastly, it seems that there are some issues preventing people from using
> 4.0.0-alpha-1.
> As Peter already mentioned these issues are probably release blockers and
> it should be taken into account in the next Hive 4 release.
> The thread about the next steps after 4.0.0-alpha-1 [3] is the perfect
> place to discuss those.
> For those with certain demands around Hive 4, please reply to [3] and
> include any specific JIRAs that need to be in the scope of the next release.
>
> Best,
> Stamatis
>
> [1] https://logging1-he-de.apache.org/stats/
> [2] https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat
> [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/n245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj
>
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:55 AM Sungwoo Park <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We maintain our own fork of Hive 3 because we are not always adding new
>> commits to the tip of the branch. To backport a new patch, sometimes we
>> have to add new commits between existing commits, update earlier commits,
>> and so on. This makes it impractical to keep adding new patches only to the
>> tip of the branch while reverting commits if necessary. Maintaining the
>> Hive 3 branch would mean frequent force-updates, which might produce more
>> problems. (If this is not an issue, we could try to completely rebuild the
>> Hive 3 branch.)
>>
>> I hope the Apache community can make a concerted effort to figure out
>> what patches to include in Hive 3. For us, the challenge was 1) to decide
>> which patch to include; 2) to figure out its dependencies if any; 3) to
>> resolve conflicts. Testing was also another source of pain.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --- Sungwoo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:26 PM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When we were brainstorming about the future of the Hive 3 branch with
>>> Zoltan Haindrich, he mentioned this letter:
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/by9ppc2z8oqdzpqotzv5bs34yrxrd84l
>>>
>>> I think Sungwoo Park and his team makes a huge effort to maintain this
>>> branch, and maybe it would be better to help them do this inside the Apache
>>> Hive project. They should not need to maintain their own branch if there is
>>> no particular reason behind it, or we can remove those blockers. This could
>>> be beneficial for every Hive user who still uses Hive 3.
>>>
>>> @Sungwoo: Do you have any specific reason to keep you own fork of Hive 3?
>>>
>>> That would mean we could have a much better Hive 3.x branch than we have
>>> now.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2022. May 10., at 8:40, Battula, Brahma Reddy <
>>> bbattula@visa.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree to Peter and sunchao..
>>>
>>> Even we are using the hive 3.x, we might contribute on bugfixes.
>>>
>>> Even I am +1 on 1.x EOL as it's hard to maintain so many releases and
>>> time to user's migrate to 2.x and 3.x.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/05/22, 10:51 PM, "Chao Sun" <su...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree to Peter above. I know quite a few projects such as Spark,
>>> Iceberg and Trino/Presto are depending on Hive 2.x and 3.x, and
>>> periodically they may need new fixes in these. Upgrading them to use
>>> 4.x seems not an option for now since the core classified artifact has
>>> been removed and the shading issue has to be solved before they can
>>> consume the new jar.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:10 AM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Team,
>>>
>>> My experience with the Iceberg community shows that there are some
>>> sizeable userbase around Hive 2.x. I have seen patches, contributions to
>>> Hive 2.3.x branches, and the tests are in much better shape there.
>>>
>>> I would definitely vote for EOL Hive 1.x, but until we have a stable
>>> 4.x, I would be cautious about slashing 2.x, 3.x branches.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 2022. May 9., at 10:51, Alessandro Solimando <
>>> alessandro.solimando@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stamatis,
>>> thanks for bringing up this topic, I basically agree on everything you
>>> wrote.
>>>
>>> I just wanted to add that this kind of proposal might sound harsh,
>>> because in many contexts upgrading is a complex process, but it's in
>>> nobody's interest to keep release branches that are missing important
>>> fixes/improvements and that might not meet the quality standards that
>>> people expect, as mentioned.
>>>
>>> Since we don't have yet a stable 4.x release (only alpha for now) we
>>> might want to keep supporting the 3.x branch until the first 4.x stable
>>> release and EOL < 3.x branches, WDYT?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Alessandro
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 23:14, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The current master has many critical bug fixes as well as important
>>> performance improvements that are not backported (and most likely never
>>> will) to the maintenance branches.
>>>
>>> Backporting changes from master usually requires adapting the code and
>>> tests in questions making it a non-trivial and time consuming task.
>>>
>>> The ASF bylaws require PMCs to deliver high quality software which
>>> satisfy certain criteria. Cutting new releases from maintenance branches
>>> with known critical bugs is not compliant with the ASF.
>>>
>>> CI is unstable in all maintenance branches making the quality of a
>>> release questionable and merging new PRs rather difficult. Enabling and
>>> running it frequently in all maintenance branches would require a big
>>> amount of resources on top of what we already need for master.
>>>
>>> History has shown that it is very difficult or impossible to properly
>>> maintain multiple release branches for Hive.
>>>
>>> I think it would be to the best interest of the project if the PMC
>>> decided to drop support for maintenance branches and focused on releasing
>>> exclusively from master.
>>>
>>> This mail is related to the discussion about the release cadence [1]
>>> since it would certainly help making Hive releases more regular. I decided
>>> to start a separate thread to avoid mixing multiple topics together.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Stamatis
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread%2Fn245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj&data=05%7C01%7Cbbattula%40visa.com%7Ccba1383657724a00f0bb08da31e069bc%7C38305e12e15d4ee888b9c4db1c477d76%7C0%7C0%7C637877137169408371%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X3BJyzgALXZVnjmd2PzbLrOi4lXMHxEQa8KwA1Pz7BQ%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Chao Sun <su...@apache.org>.
Hi Ayush,
I'm working on the last few commits to backport to the branch.
Hopefully within 1-2 months I can start the release process. Our goal
is to upgrade Hive 2.x before the Spark 4.0 release coming up mid this
year.
Chao
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:17 PM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanx everyone for the feedback, I have started a formal thread to mark 1.x
> EOL. We can have one last release for 2.x as Chao mentioned, with some
> required changes + our CVE's & get the release line marked as EOL then.
>
> @Chao Sun <su...@apache.org> Do let us know if you have a proposed
> timeline for that.
>
> -Ayush
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:23, vihang karajgaonkar <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I was confused about the subject line since it says 3.x as well along with
> > 1.x and 2.x. Does this discussion include all 1.x, 2.x and 3.x or just 1.x
> > and 2.x?
> >
> > I think it makes sense to EOL 1.x. Looks like 2.x is still being maintained
> > by Chao and I think we were backporting PRs to the 3.x line pretty recently
> > so I believe we should wait out for a release on Hive 3.x.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vihang
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:40 PM Attila Turoczy
> > <at...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear PMC's,
> > >
> > > Do we have a verdict / decision about this?
> > >
> > > -Attila
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM Chao Sun <su...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Hive 2.x, I'm still preparing for another release 2.3.10 (Hive 2.3
> > > > branch is being actively maintained so far). Hopefully this will be
> > > > the last release in the branch-2 line.
> > > >
> > > > +1 on making Hive 1 EOL for the time being.
> > > >
> > > > Chao
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:10 AM Sankar Hariappan
> > > > <Sa...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for making both Hive 1&2 EOL
> > > > >
> > > > > -Sankar
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Attila Turoczy <at...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:37 PM
> > > > > To: dev@hive.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
> > > > >
> > > > > [You don't often get email from aturoczy@cloudera.com.invalid. Learn
> > > > why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
> > ]
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for making it EOL for Hive 1 and Hive 2. I do not think these 2
> > > > product
> > > > > branches are relevant in 2023.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Attila
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Denys Kuzmenko <
> > dkuzmenko@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Assuming no volunteers willing to take ownership of branch-2
> > > > maintenance,
> > > > > > +1 to declare it EOL as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Denys
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>.
Thanx everyone for the feedback, I have started a formal thread to mark 1.x
EOL. We can have one last release for 2.x as Chao mentioned, with some
required changes + our CVE's & get the release line marked as EOL then.
@Chao Sun <su...@apache.org> Do let us know if you have a proposed
timeline for that.
-Ayush
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:23, vihang karajgaonkar <vi...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I was confused about the subject line since it says 3.x as well along with
> 1.x and 2.x. Does this discussion include all 1.x, 2.x and 3.x or just 1.x
> and 2.x?
>
> I think it makes sense to EOL 1.x. Looks like 2.x is still being maintained
> by Chao and I think we were backporting PRs to the 3.x line pretty recently
> so I believe we should wait out for a release on Hive 3.x.
>
> Thanks,
> Vihang
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:40 PM Attila Turoczy
> <at...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Dear PMC's,
> >
> > Do we have a verdict / decision about this?
> >
> > -Attila
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM Chao Sun <su...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Hive 2.x, I'm still preparing for another release 2.3.10 (Hive 2.3
> > > branch is being actively maintained so far). Hopefully this will be
> > > the last release in the branch-2 line.
> > >
> > > +1 on making Hive 1 EOL for the time being.
> > >
> > > Chao
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:10 AM Sankar Hariappan
> > > <Sa...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 for making both Hive 1&2 EOL
> > > >
> > > > -Sankar
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Attila Turoczy <at...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:37 PM
> > > > To: dev@hive.apache.org
> > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
> > > >
> > > > [You don't often get email from aturoczy@cloudera.com.invalid. Learn
> > > why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
> ]
> > > >
> > > > +1 for making it EOL for Hive 1 and Hive 2. I do not think these 2
> > > product
> > > > branches are relevant in 2023.
> > > >
> > > > -Attila
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Denys Kuzmenko <
> dkuzmenko@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL
> > > > >
> > > > > Assuming no volunteers willing to take ownership of branch-2
> > > maintenance,
> > > > > +1 to declare it EOL as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Denys
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by vihang karajgaonkar <vi...@apache.org>.
I was confused about the subject line since it says 3.x as well along with
1.x and 2.x. Does this discussion include all 1.x, 2.x and 3.x or just 1.x
and 2.x?
I think it makes sense to EOL 1.x. Looks like 2.x is still being maintained
by Chao and I think we were backporting PRs to the 3.x line pretty recently
so I believe we should wait out for a release on Hive 3.x.
Thanks,
Vihang
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:40 PM Attila Turoczy
<at...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> Dear PMC's,
>
> Do we have a verdict / decision about this?
>
> -Attila
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM Chao Sun <su...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Hive 2.x, I'm still preparing for another release 2.3.10 (Hive 2.3
> > branch is being actively maintained so far). Hopefully this will be
> > the last release in the branch-2 line.
> >
> > +1 on making Hive 1 EOL for the time being.
> >
> > Chao
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:10 AM Sankar Hariappan
> > <Sa...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for making both Hive 1&2 EOL
> > >
> > > -Sankar
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Attila Turoczy <at...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:37 PM
> > > To: dev@hive.apache.org
> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
> > >
> > > [You don't often get email from aturoczy@cloudera.com.invalid. Learn
> > why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > >
> > > +1 for making it EOL for Hive 1 and Hive 2. I do not think these 2
> > product
> > > branches are relevant in 2023.
> > >
> > > -Attila
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Denys Kuzmenko <dk...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL
> > > >
> > > > Assuming no volunteers willing to take ownership of branch-2
> > maintenance,
> > > > +1 to declare it EOL as well.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Denys
> > > >
> >
>
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Attila Turoczy <at...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Dear PMC's,
Do we have a verdict / decision about this?
-Attila
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:45 PM Chao Sun <su...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Hive 2.x, I'm still preparing for another release 2.3.10 (Hive 2.3
> branch is being actively maintained so far). Hopefully this will be
> the last release in the branch-2 line.
>
> +1 on making Hive 1 EOL for the time being.
>
> Chao
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:10 AM Sankar Hariappan
> <Sa...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for making both Hive 1&2 EOL
> >
> > -Sankar
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Attila Turoczy <at...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:37 PM
> > To: dev@hive.apache.org
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
> >
> > [You don't often get email from aturoczy@cloudera.com.invalid. Learn
> why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > +1 for making it EOL for Hive 1 and Hive 2. I do not think these 2
> product
> > branches are relevant in 2023.
> >
> > -Attila
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Denys Kuzmenko <dk...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL
> > >
> > > Assuming no volunteers willing to take ownership of branch-2
> maintenance,
> > > +1 to declare it EOL as well.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Denys
> > >
>
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Chao Sun <su...@apache.org>.
On Hive 2.x, I'm still preparing for another release 2.3.10 (Hive 2.3
branch is being actively maintained so far). Hopefully this will be
the last release in the branch-2 line.
+1 on making Hive 1 EOL for the time being.
Chao
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:10 AM Sankar Hariappan
<Sa...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> +1 for making both Hive 1&2 EOL
>
> -Sankar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Attila Turoczy <at...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:37 PM
> To: dev@hive.apache.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
>
> [You don't often get email from aturoczy@cloudera.com.invalid. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> +1 for making it EOL for Hive 1 and Hive 2. I do not think these 2 product
> branches are relevant in 2023.
>
> -Attila
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Denys Kuzmenko <dk...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL
> >
> > Assuming no volunteers willing to take ownership of branch-2 maintenance,
> > +1 to declare it EOL as well.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Denys
> >
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Sankar Hariappan <Sa...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
+1 for making both Hive 1&2 EOL
-Sankar
-----Original Message-----
From: Attila Turoczy <at...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:37 PM
To: dev@hive.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
[You don't often get email from aturoczy@cloudera.com.invalid. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
+1 for making it EOL for Hive 1 and Hive 2. I do not think these 2 product
branches are relevant in 2023.
-Attila
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Denys Kuzmenko <dk...@apache.org>
wrote:
> +1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL
>
> Assuming no volunteers willing to take ownership of branch-2 maintenance,
> +1 to declare it EOL as well.
>
> Regards,
> Denys
>
Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Attila Turoczy <at...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
+1 for making it EOL for Hive 1 and Hive 2. I do not think these 2 product
branches are relevant in 2023.
-Attila
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Denys Kuzmenko <dk...@apache.org>
wrote:
> +1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL
>
> Assuming no volunteers willing to take ownership of branch-2 maintenance,
> +1 to declare it EOL as well.
>
> Regards,
> Denys
>
Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Denys Kuzmenko <dk...@apache.org>.
+1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL
Assuming no volunteers willing to take ownership of branch-2 maintenance, +1 to declare it EOL as well.
Regards,
Denys
Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>.
+1 for marking Hive 1.x EOL.
I will also take the opportunity to ask again for Hive 2.x. Are there
people willing to take on the maintenance of the branch-2 line? The
people who take on the maintenance of the release line should (as a
bare minimum) ensure that all CVEs (existing and new ones) are
backported in a timely manner and cut new releases once this happens.
If there are no volunteers to take on this task then the PMC should
also vote for closing this branch.
Best,
Stamatis
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:48 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I will start a vote to mark Hive 1.x EOL next week. Let me know if
> anyone has concerns around it.
>
> The main reason to mark a release line EOL is: if we have a CVE & if
> we don't release all the active lines with the fix we can't announce
> that & the PMC would be flagged every quarter for delaying the
> process, So, sooner or later we need to find a way to reduce the
> number of active release lines.
>
> -Ayush
>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 at 01:35, Chao Sun <su...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hive 2.x is still being used by other projects like Spark and Iceberg,
> > and periodically there are bug fixes & CVE fixes coming into the
> > branch. So I would suggest keeping it alive for a bit longer (maybe
> > after 2.3.10/11 release) until the other projects are ready to move
> > away from it (which could take some significant efforts).
> >
> > Chao
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 5:51 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1, to start EOL vote for 1.x, and we can keep a doc or a reference in the
> > > Hive Wiki/Website to mark the lines EOL
> > >
> > > Sharing thoughts about the other release lines.
> > > Though there were assertions that we have a lot of users on 2.x & 3.x
> > > lines, I don't think marking these lines as EOL will impact them that
> > > badly.
> > > Marking a release line seems to be a Dev agreement that we as the
> > > developers aren't putting enough efforts now maintaining these branches and
> > > they aren't very up to date.
> > >
> > > Quoting the example from Hadoop. Hadoop 3.1.x line is marked as EOL and
> > > still almost every second person on Hadoop 3.x line is on a heavily patched
> > > version of 3.1.x, and from the other half still a bunch of them are on 2.x
> > > family, out of which only 2.10.x isn't EOL. Side note: As of today Hive in
> > > master branch also depends on an unstable EOL version of hadoop, that is
> > > 3.1.0(Upgrade in progress)
> > >
> > > From the stability point of view, I agree with Stamatis that 4.x in alpha
> > > stage is still better than a bunch of previous releases in many aspects,
> > > and supporting older releases will just slow down the chances of
> > > adaptability of the new 4.x.
> > > If we see the git history even of these old branches, the frequency of
> > > commits are even too low, so I don't think most of the
> > > developers/committers aren't putting efforts maintaining these
> > > branches.(Subjective Opinion)
> > >
> > > IMO, We should consider marking 1.x & 2.x as EOL, Resolve upgrade issues
> > > mentioned for 3.x->4.x and once resolved, if that doesn't require any
> > > changes on 3.x line and everyone is happy then mark that even as EOL or
> > > else have a last bridge release for this branch to move to 4.x
> > >
> > > Just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > -Ayush
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 at 19:38, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > In the last exchanges there was a general consensus to EOL Hive 1.X but no
> > > > additional action.
> > > > I believe the next step would be to start a VOTE and move forward with an
> > > > official announcement.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be helpful for the end-users to know which releases are
> > > > supported and which are strongly discouraged.
> > > > The Hadoop community keeps this information in their wiki [1].
> > > >
> > > > Although, I am still not convinced that we should encourage users to use
> > > > the older release lines (2.X, 3.X) we can postpone the decision for the
> > > > time being and proceed just for 1.X.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Stamatis
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/EOL+%28End-of-life%29+Release+Branches
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:51 PM Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I am happy to see so many
> > > > > people involved in the discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say that the current 4.0.0-alpha-1 is better in many aspects than
> > > > > previous stable releases, although this might be a bit subjective.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am afraid that if we keep supporting older releases it will take too
> > > > > much time till people start using the 4.x.
> > > > > Having real deployments of Hive 4 is the only way to go from alpha to
> > > > > stable releases with confidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > I checked the download statistics for Hive releases [1], [2] for the past
> > > > > month and the results show that the vast majority of downloads are for
> > > > > older releases.
> > > > > I am not posting the stats here since I am not sure if this would violate
> > > > > some policies. Hive committers can access the stats using their ASF
> > > > > credentials.
> > > > > To some degree this is expected but at the same time problematic given
> > > > the
> > > > > number of open issues which affect older releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would definitely like to have multiple maintenance branches with high
> > > > > quality standards but I don't think there are enough active committers in
> > > > > the project to successfully maintain those.
> > > > > The https://github.com/mr3project/hive-mr3 repo may be a great fit for
> > > > an
> > > > > upcoming ASF Hive release.
> > > > > However, according to what Sungwoo said, this seems more like a new
> > > > > maintenance branch rather than a continuation of Hive 3.
> > > > > Moving towards this direction would certainly require more time from all
> > > > > of us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lastly, it seems that there are some issues preventing people from using
> > > > > 4.0.0-alpha-1.
> > > > > As Peter already mentioned these issues are probably release blockers and
> > > > > it should be taken into account in the next Hive 4 release.
> > > > > The thread about the next steps after 4.0.0-alpha-1 [3] is the perfect
> > > > > place to discuss those.
> > > > > For those with certain demands around Hive 4, please reply to [3] and
> > > > > include any specific JIRAs that need to be in the scope of the next
> > > > release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Stamatis
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://logging1-he-de.apache.org/stats/
> > > > > [2] https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat
> > > > > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/n245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:55 AM Sungwoo Park <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> We maintain our own fork of Hive 3 because we are not always adding new
> > > > >> commits to the tip of the branch. To backport a new patch, sometimes we
> > > > >> have to add new commits between existing commits, update earlier
> > > > commits,
> > > > >> and so on. This makes it impractical to keep adding new patches only to
> > > > the
> > > > >> tip of the branch while reverting commits if necessary. Maintaining the
> > > > >> Hive 3 branch would mean frequent force-updates, which might produce
> > > > more
> > > > >> problems. (If this is not an issue, we could try to completely rebuild
> > > > the
> > > > >> Hive 3 branch.)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I hope the Apache community can make a concerted effort to figure out
> > > > >> what patches to include in Hive 3. For us, the challenge was 1) to
> > > > decide
> > > > >> which patch to include; 2) to figure out its dependencies if any; 3) to
> > > > >> resolve conflicts. Testing was also another source of pain.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- Sungwoo
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:26 PM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> When we were brainstorming about the future of the Hive 3 branch with
> > > > >>> Zoltan Haindrich, he mentioned this letter:
> > > > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/by9ppc2z8oqdzpqotzv5bs34yrxrd84l
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think Sungwoo Park and his team makes a huge effort to maintain this
> > > > >>> branch, and maybe it would be better to help them do this inside the
> > > > Apache
> > > > >>> Hive project. They should not need to maintain their own branch if
> > > > there is
> > > > >>> no particular reason behind it, or we can remove those blockers. This
> > > > could
> > > > >>> be beneficial for every Hive user who still uses Hive 3.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> @Sungwoo: Do you have any specific reason to keep you own fork of Hive
> > > > 3?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That would mean we could have a much better Hive 3.x branch than we
> > > > have
> > > > >>> now.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What do you think?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Peter
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 2022. May 10., at 8:40, Battula, Brahma Reddy <
> > > > >>> bbattula@visa.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Agree to Peter and sunchao..
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Even we are using the hive 3.x, we might contribute on bugfixes.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Even I am +1 on 1.x EOL as it's hard to maintain so many releases and
> > > > >>> time to user's migrate to 2.x and 3.x.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 09/05/22, 10:51 PM, "Chao Sun" <su...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Agree to Peter above. I know quite a few projects such as Spark,
> > > > >>> Iceberg and Trino/Presto are depending on Hive 2.x and 3.x, and
> > > > >>> periodically they may need new fixes in these. Upgrading them to use
> > > > >>> 4.x seems not an option for now since the core classified artifact
> > > > has
> > > > >>> been removed and the shading issue has to be solved before they can
> > > > >>> consume the new jar.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:10 AM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi Team,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> My experience with the Iceberg community shows that there are some
> > > > >>> sizeable userbase around Hive 2.x. I have seen patches, contributions
> > > > to
> > > > >>> Hive 2.3.x branches, and the tests are in much better shape there.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I would definitely vote for EOL Hive 1.x, but until we have a stable
> > > > >>> 4.x, I would be cautious about slashing 2.x, 3.x branches.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Just my 2 cents.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Peter
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 2022. May 9., at 10:51, Alessandro Solimando <
> > > > >>> alessandro.solimando@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi Stamatis,
> > > > >>> thanks for bringing up this topic, I basically agree on everything you
> > > > >>> wrote.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I just wanted to add that this kind of proposal might sound harsh,
> > > > >>> because in many contexts upgrading is a complex process, but it's in
> > > > >>> nobody's interest to keep release branches that are missing important
> > > > >>> fixes/improvements and that might not meet the quality standards that
> > > > >>> people expect, as mentioned.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Since we don't have yet a stable 4.x release (only alpha for now) we
> > > > >>> might want to keep supporting the 3.x branch until the first 4.x stable
> > > > >>> release and EOL < 3.x branches, WDYT?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Best regards,
> > > > >>> Alessandro
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 23:14, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi all,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The current master has many critical bug fixes as well as important
> > > > >>> performance improvements that are not backported (and most likely never
> > > > >>> will) to the maintenance branches.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Backporting changes from master usually requires adapting the code and
> > > > >>> tests in questions making it a non-trivial and time consuming task.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The ASF bylaws require PMCs to deliver high quality software which
> > > > >>> satisfy certain criteria. Cutting new releases from maintenance
> > > > branches
> > > > >>> with known critical bugs is not compliant with the ASF.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> CI is unstable in all maintenance branches making the quality of a
> > > > >>> release questionable and merging new PRs rather difficult. Enabling and
> > > > >>> running it frequently in all maintenance branches would require a big
> > > > >>> amount of resources on top of what we already need for master.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> History has shown that it is very difficult or impossible to properly
> > > > >>> maintain multiple release branches for Hive.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think it would be to the best interest of the project if the PMC
> > > > >>> decided to drop support for maintenance branches and focused on
> > > > releasing
> > > > >>> exclusively from master.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This mail is related to the discussion about the release cadence [1]
> > > > >>> since it would certainly help making Hive releases more regular. I
> > > > decided
> > > > >>> to start a separate thread to avoid mixing multiple topics together.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Looking forward to your thoughts.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Best,
> > > > >>> Stamatis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> [1]
> > > > >>>
> > > > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread%2Fn245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj&data=05%7C01%7Cbbattula%40visa.com%7Ccba1383657724a00f0bb08da31e069bc%7C38305e12e15d4ee888b9c4db1c477d76%7C0%7C0%7C637877137169408371%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X3BJyzgALXZVnjmd2PzbLrOi4lXMHxEQa8KwA1Pz7BQ%3D&reserved=0
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>.
I will start a vote to mark Hive 1.x EOL next week. Let me know if
anyone has concerns around it.
The main reason to mark a release line EOL is: if we have a CVE & if
we don't release all the active lines with the fix we can't announce
that & the PMC would be flagged every quarter for delaying the
process, So, sooner or later we need to find a way to reduce the
number of active release lines.
-Ayush
On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 at 01:35, Chao Sun <su...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hive 2.x is still being used by other projects like Spark and Iceberg,
> and periodically there are bug fixes & CVE fixes coming into the
> branch. So I would suggest keeping it alive for a bit longer (maybe
> after 2.3.10/11 release) until the other projects are ready to move
> away from it (which could take some significant efforts).
>
> Chao
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 5:51 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1, to start EOL vote for 1.x, and we can keep a doc or a reference in the
> > Hive Wiki/Website to mark the lines EOL
> >
> > Sharing thoughts about the other release lines.
> > Though there were assertions that we have a lot of users on 2.x & 3.x
> > lines, I don't think marking these lines as EOL will impact them that
> > badly.
> > Marking a release line seems to be a Dev agreement that we as the
> > developers aren't putting enough efforts now maintaining these branches and
> > they aren't very up to date.
> >
> > Quoting the example from Hadoop. Hadoop 3.1.x line is marked as EOL and
> > still almost every second person on Hadoop 3.x line is on a heavily patched
> > version of 3.1.x, and from the other half still a bunch of them are on 2.x
> > family, out of which only 2.10.x isn't EOL. Side note: As of today Hive in
> > master branch also depends on an unstable EOL version of hadoop, that is
> > 3.1.0(Upgrade in progress)
> >
> > From the stability point of view, I agree with Stamatis that 4.x in alpha
> > stage is still better than a bunch of previous releases in many aspects,
> > and supporting older releases will just slow down the chances of
> > adaptability of the new 4.x.
> > If we see the git history even of these old branches, the frequency of
> > commits are even too low, so I don't think most of the
> > developers/committers aren't putting efforts maintaining these
> > branches.(Subjective Opinion)
> >
> > IMO, We should consider marking 1.x & 2.x as EOL, Resolve upgrade issues
> > mentioned for 3.x->4.x and once resolved, if that doesn't require any
> > changes on 3.x line and everyone is happy then mark that even as EOL or
> > else have a last bridge release for this branch to move to 4.x
> >
> > Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > -Ayush
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 at 19:38, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > In the last exchanges there was a general consensus to EOL Hive 1.X but no
> > > additional action.
> > > I believe the next step would be to start a VOTE and move forward with an
> > > official announcement.
> > >
> > > I think it would be helpful for the end-users to know which releases are
> > > supported and which are strongly discouraged.
> > > The Hadoop community keeps this information in their wiki [1].
> > >
> > > Although, I am still not convinced that we should encourage users to use
> > > the older release lines (2.X, 3.X) we can postpone the decision for the
> > > time being and proceed just for 1.X.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Stamatis
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/EOL+%28End-of-life%29+Release+Branches
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:51 PM Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I am happy to see so many
> > > > people involved in the discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I would say that the current 4.0.0-alpha-1 is better in many aspects than
> > > > previous stable releases, although this might be a bit subjective.
> > > >
> > > > I am afraid that if we keep supporting older releases it will take too
> > > > much time till people start using the 4.x.
> > > > Having real deployments of Hive 4 is the only way to go from alpha to
> > > > stable releases with confidence.
> > > >
> > > > I checked the download statistics for Hive releases [1], [2] for the past
> > > > month and the results show that the vast majority of downloads are for
> > > > older releases.
> > > > I am not posting the stats here since I am not sure if this would violate
> > > > some policies. Hive committers can access the stats using their ASF
> > > > credentials.
> > > > To some degree this is expected but at the same time problematic given
> > > the
> > > > number of open issues which affect older releases.
> > > >
> > > > I would definitely like to have multiple maintenance branches with high
> > > > quality standards but I don't think there are enough active committers in
> > > > the project to successfully maintain those.
> > > > The https://github.com/mr3project/hive-mr3 repo may be a great fit for
> > > an
> > > > upcoming ASF Hive release.
> > > > However, according to what Sungwoo said, this seems more like a new
> > > > maintenance branch rather than a continuation of Hive 3.
> > > > Moving towards this direction would certainly require more time from all
> > > > of us.
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, it seems that there are some issues preventing people from using
> > > > 4.0.0-alpha-1.
> > > > As Peter already mentioned these issues are probably release blockers and
> > > > it should be taken into account in the next Hive 4 release.
> > > > The thread about the next steps after 4.0.0-alpha-1 [3] is the perfect
> > > > place to discuss those.
> > > > For those with certain demands around Hive 4, please reply to [3] and
> > > > include any specific JIRAs that need to be in the scope of the next
> > > release.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Stamatis
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://logging1-he-de.apache.org/stats/
> > > > [2] https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat
> > > > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/n245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:55 AM Sungwoo Park <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> We maintain our own fork of Hive 3 because we are not always adding new
> > > >> commits to the tip of the branch. To backport a new patch, sometimes we
> > > >> have to add new commits between existing commits, update earlier
> > > commits,
> > > >> and so on. This makes it impractical to keep adding new patches only to
> > > the
> > > >> tip of the branch while reverting commits if necessary. Maintaining the
> > > >> Hive 3 branch would mean frequent force-updates, which might produce
> > > more
> > > >> problems. (If this is not an issue, we could try to completely rebuild
> > > the
> > > >> Hive 3 branch.)
> > > >>
> > > >> I hope the Apache community can make a concerted effort to figure out
> > > >> what patches to include in Hive 3. For us, the challenge was 1) to
> > > decide
> > > >> which patch to include; 2) to figure out its dependencies if any; 3) to
> > > >> resolve conflicts. Testing was also another source of pain.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> --- Sungwoo
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:26 PM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> When we were brainstorming about the future of the Hive 3 branch with
> > > >>> Zoltan Haindrich, he mentioned this letter:
> > > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/by9ppc2z8oqdzpqotzv5bs34yrxrd84l
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think Sungwoo Park and his team makes a huge effort to maintain this
> > > >>> branch, and maybe it would be better to help them do this inside the
> > > Apache
> > > >>> Hive project. They should not need to maintain their own branch if
> > > there is
> > > >>> no particular reason behind it, or we can remove those blockers. This
> > > could
> > > >>> be beneficial for every Hive user who still uses Hive 3.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> @Sungwoo: Do you have any specific reason to keep you own fork of Hive
> > > 3?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That would mean we could have a much better Hive 3.x branch than we
> > > have
> > > >>> now.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What do you think?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Peter
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 2022. May 10., at 8:40, Battula, Brahma Reddy <
> > > >>> bbattula@visa.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Agree to Peter and sunchao..
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Even we are using the hive 3.x, we might contribute on bugfixes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Even I am +1 on 1.x EOL as it's hard to maintain so many releases and
> > > >>> time to user's migrate to 2.x and 3.x.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 09/05/22, 10:51 PM, "Chao Sun" <su...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Agree to Peter above. I know quite a few projects such as Spark,
> > > >>> Iceberg and Trino/Presto are depending on Hive 2.x and 3.x, and
> > > >>> periodically they may need new fixes in these. Upgrading them to use
> > > >>> 4.x seems not an option for now since the core classified artifact
> > > has
> > > >>> been removed and the shading issue has to be solved before they can
> > > >>> consume the new jar.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:10 AM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi Team,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> My experience with the Iceberg community shows that there are some
> > > >>> sizeable userbase around Hive 2.x. I have seen patches, contributions
> > > to
> > > >>> Hive 2.3.x branches, and the tests are in much better shape there.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I would definitely vote for EOL Hive 1.x, but until we have a stable
> > > >>> 4.x, I would be cautious about slashing 2.x, 3.x branches.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Just my 2 cents.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Peter
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 2022. May 9., at 10:51, Alessandro Solimando <
> > > >>> alessandro.solimando@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi Stamatis,
> > > >>> thanks for bringing up this topic, I basically agree on everything you
> > > >>> wrote.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I just wanted to add that this kind of proposal might sound harsh,
> > > >>> because in many contexts upgrading is a complex process, but it's in
> > > >>> nobody's interest to keep release branches that are missing important
> > > >>> fixes/improvements and that might not meet the quality standards that
> > > >>> people expect, as mentioned.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Since we don't have yet a stable 4.x release (only alpha for now) we
> > > >>> might want to keep supporting the 3.x branch until the first 4.x stable
> > > >>> release and EOL < 3.x branches, WDYT?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best regards,
> > > >>> Alessandro
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 23:14, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi all,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The current master has many critical bug fixes as well as important
> > > >>> performance improvements that are not backported (and most likely never
> > > >>> will) to the maintenance branches.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Backporting changes from master usually requires adapting the code and
> > > >>> tests in questions making it a non-trivial and time consuming task.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The ASF bylaws require PMCs to deliver high quality software which
> > > >>> satisfy certain criteria. Cutting new releases from maintenance
> > > branches
> > > >>> with known critical bugs is not compliant with the ASF.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> CI is unstable in all maintenance branches making the quality of a
> > > >>> release questionable and merging new PRs rather difficult. Enabling and
> > > >>> running it frequently in all maintenance branches would require a big
> > > >>> amount of resources on top of what we already need for master.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> History has shown that it is very difficult or impossible to properly
> > > >>> maintain multiple release branches for Hive.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think it would be to the best interest of the project if the PMC
> > > >>> decided to drop support for maintenance branches and focused on
> > > releasing
> > > >>> exclusively from master.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This mail is related to the discussion about the release cadence [1]
> > > >>> since it would certainly help making Hive releases more regular. I
> > > decided
> > > >>> to start a separate thread to avoid mixing multiple topics together.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Looking forward to your thoughts.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best,
> > > >>> Stamatis
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1]
> > > >>>
> > > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread%2Fn245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj&data=05%7C01%7Cbbattula%40visa.com%7Ccba1383657724a00f0bb08da31e069bc%7C38305e12e15d4ee888b9c4db1c477d76%7C0%7C0%7C637877137169408371%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X3BJyzgALXZVnjmd2PzbLrOi4lXMHxEQa8KwA1Pz7BQ%3D&reserved=0
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Chao Sun <su...@apache.org>.
Hive 2.x is still being used by other projects like Spark and Iceberg,
and periodically there are bug fixes & CVE fixes coming into the
branch. So I would suggest keeping it alive for a bit longer (maybe
after 2.3.10/11 release) until the other projects are ready to move
away from it (which could take some significant efforts).
Chao
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 5:51 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1, to start EOL vote for 1.x, and we can keep a doc or a reference in the
> Hive Wiki/Website to mark the lines EOL
>
> Sharing thoughts about the other release lines.
> Though there were assertions that we have a lot of users on 2.x & 3.x
> lines, I don't think marking these lines as EOL will impact them that
> badly.
> Marking a release line seems to be a Dev agreement that we as the
> developers aren't putting enough efforts now maintaining these branches and
> they aren't very up to date.
>
> Quoting the example from Hadoop. Hadoop 3.1.x line is marked as EOL and
> still almost every second person on Hadoop 3.x line is on a heavily patched
> version of 3.1.x, and from the other half still a bunch of them are on 2.x
> family, out of which only 2.10.x isn't EOL. Side note: As of today Hive in
> master branch also depends on an unstable EOL version of hadoop, that is
> 3.1.0(Upgrade in progress)
>
> From the stability point of view, I agree with Stamatis that 4.x in alpha
> stage is still better than a bunch of previous releases in many aspects,
> and supporting older releases will just slow down the chances of
> adaptability of the new 4.x.
> If we see the git history even of these old branches, the frequency of
> commits are even too low, so I don't think most of the
> developers/committers aren't putting efforts maintaining these
> branches.(Subjective Opinion)
>
> IMO, We should consider marking 1.x & 2.x as EOL, Resolve upgrade issues
> mentioned for 3.x->4.x and once resolved, if that doesn't require any
> changes on 3.x line and everyone is happy then mark that even as EOL or
> else have a last bridge release for this branch to move to 4.x
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> -Ayush
>
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 at 19:38, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In the last exchanges there was a general consensus to EOL Hive 1.X but no
> > additional action.
> > I believe the next step would be to start a VOTE and move forward with an
> > official announcement.
> >
> > I think it would be helpful for the end-users to know which releases are
> > supported and which are strongly discouraged.
> > The Hadoop community keeps this information in their wiki [1].
> >
> > Although, I am still not convinced that we should encourage users to use
> > the older release lines (2.X, 3.X) we can postpone the decision for the
> > time being and proceed just for 1.X.
> >
> > Best,
> > Stamatis
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/EOL+%28End-of-life%29+Release+Branches
> >
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:51 PM Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I am happy to see so many
> > > people involved in the discussion.
> > >
> > > I would say that the current 4.0.0-alpha-1 is better in many aspects than
> > > previous stable releases, although this might be a bit subjective.
> > >
> > > I am afraid that if we keep supporting older releases it will take too
> > > much time till people start using the 4.x.
> > > Having real deployments of Hive 4 is the only way to go from alpha to
> > > stable releases with confidence.
> > >
> > > I checked the download statistics for Hive releases [1], [2] for the past
> > > month and the results show that the vast majority of downloads are for
> > > older releases.
> > > I am not posting the stats here since I am not sure if this would violate
> > > some policies. Hive committers can access the stats using their ASF
> > > credentials.
> > > To some degree this is expected but at the same time problematic given
> > the
> > > number of open issues which affect older releases.
> > >
> > > I would definitely like to have multiple maintenance branches with high
> > > quality standards but I don't think there are enough active committers in
> > > the project to successfully maintain those.
> > > The https://github.com/mr3project/hive-mr3 repo may be a great fit for
> > an
> > > upcoming ASF Hive release.
> > > However, according to what Sungwoo said, this seems more like a new
> > > maintenance branch rather than a continuation of Hive 3.
> > > Moving towards this direction would certainly require more time from all
> > > of us.
> > >
> > > Lastly, it seems that there are some issues preventing people from using
> > > 4.0.0-alpha-1.
> > > As Peter already mentioned these issues are probably release blockers and
> > > it should be taken into account in the next Hive 4 release.
> > > The thread about the next steps after 4.0.0-alpha-1 [3] is the perfect
> > > place to discuss those.
> > > For those with certain demands around Hive 4, please reply to [3] and
> > > include any specific JIRAs that need to be in the scope of the next
> > release.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Stamatis
> > >
> > > [1] https://logging1-he-de.apache.org/stats/
> > > [2] https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat
> > > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/n245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:55 AM Sungwoo Park <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> We maintain our own fork of Hive 3 because we are not always adding new
> > >> commits to the tip of the branch. To backport a new patch, sometimes we
> > >> have to add new commits between existing commits, update earlier
> > commits,
> > >> and so on. This makes it impractical to keep adding new patches only to
> > the
> > >> tip of the branch while reverting commits if necessary. Maintaining the
> > >> Hive 3 branch would mean frequent force-updates, which might produce
> > more
> > >> problems. (If this is not an issue, we could try to completely rebuild
> > the
> > >> Hive 3 branch.)
> > >>
> > >> I hope the Apache community can make a concerted effort to figure out
> > >> what patches to include in Hive 3. For us, the challenge was 1) to
> > decide
> > >> which patch to include; 2) to figure out its dependencies if any; 3) to
> > >> resolve conflicts. Testing was also another source of pain.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> --- Sungwoo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:26 PM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> When we were brainstorming about the future of the Hive 3 branch with
> > >>> Zoltan Haindrich, he mentioned this letter:
> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/by9ppc2z8oqdzpqotzv5bs34yrxrd84l
> > >>>
> > >>> I think Sungwoo Park and his team makes a huge effort to maintain this
> > >>> branch, and maybe it would be better to help them do this inside the
> > Apache
> > >>> Hive project. They should not need to maintain their own branch if
> > there is
> > >>> no particular reason behind it, or we can remove those blockers. This
> > could
> > >>> be beneficial for every Hive user who still uses Hive 3.
> > >>>
> > >>> @Sungwoo: Do you have any specific reason to keep you own fork of Hive
> > 3?
> > >>>
> > >>> That would mean we could have a much better Hive 3.x branch than we
> > have
> > >>> now.
> > >>>
> > >>> What do you think?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Peter
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2022. May 10., at 8:40, Battula, Brahma Reddy <
> > >>> bbattula@visa.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Agree to Peter and sunchao..
> > >>>
> > >>> Even we are using the hive 3.x, we might contribute on bugfixes.
> > >>>
> > >>> Even I am +1 on 1.x EOL as it's hard to maintain so many releases and
> > >>> time to user's migrate to 2.x and 3.x.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 09/05/22, 10:51 PM, "Chao Sun" <su...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Agree to Peter above. I know quite a few projects such as Spark,
> > >>> Iceberg and Trino/Presto are depending on Hive 2.x and 3.x, and
> > >>> periodically they may need new fixes in these. Upgrading them to use
> > >>> 4.x seems not an option for now since the core classified artifact
> > has
> > >>> been removed and the shading issue has to be solved before they can
> > >>> consume the new jar.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:10 AM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Team,
> > >>>
> > >>> My experience with the Iceberg community shows that there are some
> > >>> sizeable userbase around Hive 2.x. I have seen patches, contributions
> > to
> > >>> Hive 2.3.x branches, and the tests are in much better shape there.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would definitely vote for EOL Hive 1.x, but until we have a stable
> > >>> 4.x, I would be cautious about slashing 2.x, 3.x branches.
> > >>>
> > >>> Just my 2 cents.
> > >>>
> > >>> Peter
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2022. May 9., at 10:51, Alessandro Solimando <
> > >>> alessandro.solimando@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Stamatis,
> > >>> thanks for bringing up this topic, I basically agree on everything you
> > >>> wrote.
> > >>>
> > >>> I just wanted to add that this kind of proposal might sound harsh,
> > >>> because in many contexts upgrading is a complex process, but it's in
> > >>> nobody's interest to keep release branches that are missing important
> > >>> fixes/improvements and that might not meet the quality standards that
> > >>> people expect, as mentioned.
> > >>>
> > >>> Since we don't have yet a stable 4.x release (only alpha for now) we
> > >>> might want to keep supporting the 3.x branch until the first 4.x stable
> > >>> release and EOL < 3.x branches, WDYT?
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Alessandro
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 23:14, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> The current master has many critical bug fixes as well as important
> > >>> performance improvements that are not backported (and most likely never
> > >>> will) to the maintenance branches.
> > >>>
> > >>> Backporting changes from master usually requires adapting the code and
> > >>> tests in questions making it a non-trivial and time consuming task.
> > >>>
> > >>> The ASF bylaws require PMCs to deliver high quality software which
> > >>> satisfy certain criteria. Cutting new releases from maintenance
> > branches
> > >>> with known critical bugs is not compliant with the ASF.
> > >>>
> > >>> CI is unstable in all maintenance branches making the quality of a
> > >>> release questionable and merging new PRs rather difficult. Enabling and
> > >>> running it frequently in all maintenance branches would require a big
> > >>> amount of resources on top of what we already need for master.
> > >>>
> > >>> History has shown that it is very difficult or impossible to properly
> > >>> maintain multiple release branches for Hive.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think it would be to the best interest of the project if the PMC
> > >>> decided to drop support for maintenance branches and focused on
> > releasing
> > >>> exclusively from master.
> > >>>
> > >>> This mail is related to the discussion about the release cadence [1]
> > >>> since it would certainly help making Hive releases more regular. I
> > decided
> > >>> to start a separate thread to avoid mixing multiple topics together.
> > >>>
> > >>> Looking forward to your thoughts.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Stamatis
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > >>>
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread%2Fn245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj&data=05%7C01%7Cbbattula%40visa.com%7Ccba1383657724a00f0bb08da31e069bc%7C38305e12e15d4ee888b9c4db1c477d76%7C0%7C0%7C637877137169408371%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X3BJyzgALXZVnjmd2PzbLrOi4lXMHxEQa8KwA1Pz7BQ%3D&reserved=0
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] End of life for Hive 1.x, 2.x, 3.x
Posted by Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>.
+1, to start EOL vote for 1.x, and we can keep a doc or a reference in the
Hive Wiki/Website to mark the lines EOL
Sharing thoughts about the other release lines.
Though there were assertions that we have a lot of users on 2.x & 3.x
lines, I don't think marking these lines as EOL will impact them that
badly.
Marking a release line seems to be a Dev agreement that we as the
developers aren't putting enough efforts now maintaining these branches and
they aren't very up to date.
Quoting the example from Hadoop. Hadoop 3.1.x line is marked as EOL and
still almost every second person on Hadoop 3.x line is on a heavily patched
version of 3.1.x, and from the other half still a bunch of them are on 2.x
family, out of which only 2.10.x isn't EOL. Side note: As of today Hive in
master branch also depends on an unstable EOL version of hadoop, that is
3.1.0(Upgrade in progress)
From the stability point of view, I agree with Stamatis that 4.x in alpha
stage is still better than a bunch of previous releases in many aspects,
and supporting older releases will just slow down the chances of
adaptability of the new 4.x.
If we see the git history even of these old branches, the frequency of
commits are even too low, so I don't think most of the
developers/committers aren't putting efforts maintaining these
branches.(Subjective Opinion)
IMO, We should consider marking 1.x & 2.x as EOL, Resolve upgrade issues
mentioned for 3.x->4.x and once resolved, if that doesn't require any
changes on 3.x line and everyone is happy then mark that even as EOL or
else have a last bridge release for this branch to move to 4.x
Just my 2 cents.
-Ayush
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 at 19:38, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In the last exchanges there was a general consensus to EOL Hive 1.X but no
> additional action.
> I believe the next step would be to start a VOTE and move forward with an
> official announcement.
>
> I think it would be helpful for the end-users to know which releases are
> supported and which are strongly discouraged.
> The Hadoop community keeps this information in their wiki [1].
>
> Although, I am still not convinced that we should encourage users to use
> the older release lines (2.X, 3.X) we can postpone the decision for the
> time being and proceed just for 1.X.
>
> Best,
> Stamatis
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/EOL+%28End-of-life%29+Release+Branches
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:51 PM Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I am happy to see so many
> > people involved in the discussion.
> >
> > I would say that the current 4.0.0-alpha-1 is better in many aspects than
> > previous stable releases, although this might be a bit subjective.
> >
> > I am afraid that if we keep supporting older releases it will take too
> > much time till people start using the 4.x.
> > Having real deployments of Hive 4 is the only way to go from alpha to
> > stable releases with confidence.
> >
> > I checked the download statistics for Hive releases [1], [2] for the past
> > month and the results show that the vast majority of downloads are for
> > older releases.
> > I am not posting the stats here since I am not sure if this would violate
> > some policies. Hive committers can access the stats using their ASF
> > credentials.
> > To some degree this is expected but at the same time problematic given
> the
> > number of open issues which affect older releases.
> >
> > I would definitely like to have multiple maintenance branches with high
> > quality standards but I don't think there are enough active committers in
> > the project to successfully maintain those.
> > The https://github.com/mr3project/hive-mr3 repo may be a great fit for
> an
> > upcoming ASF Hive release.
> > However, according to what Sungwoo said, this seems more like a new
> > maintenance branch rather than a continuation of Hive 3.
> > Moving towards this direction would certainly require more time from all
> > of us.
> >
> > Lastly, it seems that there are some issues preventing people from using
> > 4.0.0-alpha-1.
> > As Peter already mentioned these issues are probably release blockers and
> > it should be taken into account in the next Hive 4 release.
> > The thread about the next steps after 4.0.0-alpha-1 [3] is the perfect
> > place to discuss those.
> > For those with certain demands around Hive 4, please reply to [3] and
> > include any specific JIRAs that need to be in the scope of the next
> release.
> >
> > Best,
> > Stamatis
> >
> > [1] https://logging1-he-de.apache.org/stats/
> > [2] https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat
> > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/n245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:55 AM Sungwoo Park <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> We maintain our own fork of Hive 3 because we are not always adding new
> >> commits to the tip of the branch. To backport a new patch, sometimes we
> >> have to add new commits between existing commits, update earlier
> commits,
> >> and so on. This makes it impractical to keep adding new patches only to
> the
> >> tip of the branch while reverting commits if necessary. Maintaining the
> >> Hive 3 branch would mean frequent force-updates, which might produce
> more
> >> problems. (If this is not an issue, we could try to completely rebuild
> the
> >> Hive 3 branch.)
> >>
> >> I hope the Apache community can make a concerted effort to figure out
> >> what patches to include in Hive 3. For us, the challenge was 1) to
> decide
> >> which patch to include; 2) to figure out its dependencies if any; 3) to
> >> resolve conflicts. Testing was also another source of pain.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> --- Sungwoo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:26 PM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> When we were brainstorming about the future of the Hive 3 branch with
> >>> Zoltan Haindrich, he mentioned this letter:
> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/by9ppc2z8oqdzpqotzv5bs34yrxrd84l
> >>>
> >>> I think Sungwoo Park and his team makes a huge effort to maintain this
> >>> branch, and maybe it would be better to help them do this inside the
> Apache
> >>> Hive project. They should not need to maintain their own branch if
> there is
> >>> no particular reason behind it, or we can remove those blockers. This
> could
> >>> be beneficial for every Hive user who still uses Hive 3.
> >>>
> >>> @Sungwoo: Do you have any specific reason to keep you own fork of Hive
> 3?
> >>>
> >>> That would mean we could have a much better Hive 3.x branch than we
> have
> >>> now.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2022. May 10., at 8:40, Battula, Brahma Reddy <
> >>> bbattula@visa.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Agree to Peter and sunchao..
> >>>
> >>> Even we are using the hive 3.x, we might contribute on bugfixes.
> >>>
> >>> Even I am +1 on 1.x EOL as it's hard to maintain so many releases and
> >>> time to user's migrate to 2.x and 3.x.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 09/05/22, 10:51 PM, "Chao Sun" <su...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Agree to Peter above. I know quite a few projects such as Spark,
> >>> Iceberg and Trino/Presto are depending on Hive 2.x and 3.x, and
> >>> periodically they may need new fixes in these. Upgrading them to use
> >>> 4.x seems not an option for now since the core classified artifact
> has
> >>> been removed and the shading issue has to be solved before they can
> >>> consume the new jar.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:10 AM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Team,
> >>>
> >>> My experience with the Iceberg community shows that there are some
> >>> sizeable userbase around Hive 2.x. I have seen patches, contributions
> to
> >>> Hive 2.3.x branches, and the tests are in much better shape there.
> >>>
> >>> I would definitely vote for EOL Hive 1.x, but until we have a stable
> >>> 4.x, I would be cautious about slashing 2.x, 3.x branches.
> >>>
> >>> Just my 2 cents.
> >>>
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>> On 2022. May 9., at 10:51, Alessandro Solimando <
> >>> alessandro.solimando@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Stamatis,
> >>> thanks for bringing up this topic, I basically agree on everything you
> >>> wrote.
> >>>
> >>> I just wanted to add that this kind of proposal might sound harsh,
> >>> because in many contexts upgrading is a complex process, but it's in
> >>> nobody's interest to keep release branches that are missing important
> >>> fixes/improvements and that might not meet the quality standards that
> >>> people expect, as mentioned.
> >>>
> >>> Since we don't have yet a stable 4.x release (only alpha for now) we
> >>> might want to keep supporting the 3.x branch until the first 4.x stable
> >>> release and EOL < 3.x branches, WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Alessandro
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 23:14, Stamatis Zampetakis <za...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> The current master has many critical bug fixes as well as important
> >>> performance improvements that are not backported (and most likely never
> >>> will) to the maintenance branches.
> >>>
> >>> Backporting changes from master usually requires adapting the code and
> >>> tests in questions making it a non-trivial and time consuming task.
> >>>
> >>> The ASF bylaws require PMCs to deliver high quality software which
> >>> satisfy certain criteria. Cutting new releases from maintenance
> branches
> >>> with known critical bugs is not compliant with the ASF.
> >>>
> >>> CI is unstable in all maintenance branches making the quality of a
> >>> release questionable and merging new PRs rather difficult. Enabling and
> >>> running it frequently in all maintenance branches would require a big
> >>> amount of resources on top of what we already need for master.
> >>>
> >>> History has shown that it is very difficult or impossible to properly
> >>> maintain multiple release branches for Hive.
> >>>
> >>> I think it would be to the best interest of the project if the PMC
> >>> decided to drop support for maintenance branches and focused on
> releasing
> >>> exclusively from master.
> >>>
> >>> This mail is related to the discussion about the release cadence [1]
> >>> since it would certainly help making Hive releases more regular. I
> decided
> >>> to start a separate thread to avoid mixing multiple topics together.
> >>>
> >>> Looking forward to your thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Stamatis
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread%2Fn245dd23kb2v3qrrfp280w3pto89khxj&data=05%7C01%7Cbbattula%40visa.com%7Ccba1383657724a00f0bb08da31e069bc%7C38305e12e15d4ee888b9c4db1c477d76%7C0%7C0%7C637877137169408371%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X3BJyzgALXZVnjmd2PzbLrOi4lXMHxEQa8KwA1Pz7BQ%3D&reserved=0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>