You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@phoenix.apache.org by Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> on 2025/08/12 05:22:35 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras (Segment
scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation perf
improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0 release next
week.
Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate into
5.3.0 release.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Thank you Viraj.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the 2.6.3
> update.
> I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with 2.6. (though
> I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update)
> I know you are investigating this.
>
> Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681 for the
> 2.5.12 update.
>
> I'm not sure about updating the default.
> My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release line, which
> is 2.5.
> On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the stable to 2.6
> in the not too distant future,
> and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to change the
> default in a patch release.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion either way.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but please
> remind
> > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of improvements, features
> > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release.
> >
> > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have had recent
> > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone like to
> > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch?
> >
> > We can also use 2.6 profile by default.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll start the thread, Viraj.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module for 5.3.0
> > > > release.
> > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus and work on
> > > > removing the profile?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop support for
> > it
> > > in
> > > > > 5.3.
> > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep it as the
> last
> > > > > release, or just remove it now.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
> > pre-patches
> > > > are
> > > > > > ready,
> > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
> blocking,
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > as finishing
> > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried about the
> > amount
> > > > of
> > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for 5.3.0.
> > > Backtracking
> > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward
> compatibility
> > > etc
> > > > > might become painful.
> > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support and
> spotless
> > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include 5.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final decision? :)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth
> > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for 5.3.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop support for
> it
> > > in
> > > > >> 5.3.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 is
> > released
> > > so
> > > > >> far,
> > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
> > > pre-patches
> > > > >> are
> > > > >> > ready,
> > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
> > blocking,
> > > > >> rather
> > > > >> > as finishing
> > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with HBase
> > 3.0.0
> > > > >> >> release
> > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed for
> > HBase
> > > 2
> > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0 may be
> better
> > > for
> > > > >> > marketing.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and 2->3
> > transition
> > > > is
> > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks
> > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and 2.x from the
> > same
> > > > >> > Phoenix branch,
> > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to support HBase 2.x
> > and
> > > > 3.x
> > > > >> > from the same branch,
> > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain separate
> branches
> > > for
> > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0
> > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support for it
> > without
> > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase 2.x, they
> are
> > > just
> > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs
> > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration attempts.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > For now,
> > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be really
> > > > helpful
> > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish we
> could
> > > > have
> > > > >> >> done
> > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it at
> least.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern.
> > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless reformat now.
> > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ, and we can
> > follow
> > > > up
> > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting to
> > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but
> > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we need to
> rip
> > > the
> > > > >> > band-aid off at some point.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we merge them
> > > now,
> > > > >> then
> > > > >> > at least this will be both in
> > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the way when
> > > > >> backporting.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Istvan
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani <
> vjasani@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan!
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 is
> > released
> > > > so
> > > > >> >> far,
> > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
> > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still believe it
> makes
> > > more
> > > > >> >> sense
> > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3 branch.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> A couple of proposals:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we should also
> > > > create
> > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch for 5.x
> > > releases.
> > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev version.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with HBase
> > 3.0.0
> > > > >> >> release
> > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed for
> > HBase
> > > 2
> > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless reformat.
> > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching, otherwise it's
> just a
> > > lot
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0 release?
> For
> > > now,
> > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be really
> > > > helpful
> > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish we
> could
> > > > have
> > > > >> >> done
> > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it at
> least.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after PHOENIX-7587
> > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587> and
> > > > PHOENIX-7573
> > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573> are
> merged,
> > > > >> >> hopefully
> > > > >> >> within a week.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth
> > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is out, but
> then
> > > we
> > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a
> > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly after 3.0.
> > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish)
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation patches by me and
> > > > Villo,
> > > > >> >> which
> > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will
> > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been waiting for
> > review
> > > > for
> > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them,
> > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their current
> iteration
> > > was
> > > > >> >> already
> > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035
> > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036
> > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless reformat.
> > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching, otherwise it's
> > just a
> > > > >> lot of
> > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding HBase 3.0
> > > > preparation
> > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as
> > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the reformat)
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Istvan
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani <
> > vjasani@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > Hi,
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch from the
> > master
> > > > >> branch
> > > > >> >> > > sometime next week.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch. While
> > majority
> > > > >> >> features
> > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to ensure we have
> a
> > > > smooth
> > > > >> >> > > release.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes you are
> > > planning
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > --
> > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > >> >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > >> >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> > > > [image:
> > > > >> >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> > > [image:
> > > > >> >> Cloudera
> > > > >> >> > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> > [image:
> > > > >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> [image:
> > > > >> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > >> > ------------------------------
> > > > >> > ------------------------------
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> [image:
> > > > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> > > > >> Cloudera
> > > > >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > >> ------------------------------
> > > > >> ------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> > Cloudera
> > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > ------------------------------
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>.
No problem at all, Istvan! Only those 4 commits were backported. Otherwise
both master and 5.3 are in sync.
We just need to upgrade master branch version to 5.4 snapshot.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 10:23 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> I missed/forgot that that we've already cut 5.3.
> I don't think I backported there anything I did there, you may want to
> check for other missing commits since it's been cut.
>
> Stoty
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 6:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Looks like 5.3 branch was missed during backports. Let me take care of
> it.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:18 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds great! Let me take a look if I could find anything else before
> > > creating the RC.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 5:32 AM Istvan Toth <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks Viraj.
> > >>
> > >> I got reviews from Nihal, and committed each version update.
> > >>
> > >> If you have access to other scanners, you may also want to consider
> > >> running
> > >> that.
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Thanks.
I missed/forgot that that we've already cut 5.3.
I don't think I backported there anything I did there, you may want to
check for other missing commits since it's been cut.
Stoty
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 6:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
> Looks like 5.3 branch was missed during backports. Let me take care of it.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:18 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Sounds great! Let me take a look if I could find anything else before
> > creating the RC.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 5:32 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Viraj.
> >>
> >> I got reviews from Nihal, and committed each version update.
> >>
> >> If you have access to other scanners, you may also want to consider
> >> running
> >> that.
> >>
> >
>
--
*István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
*Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
[image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
[image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
------------------------------
------------------------------
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>.
Looks like 5.3 branch was missed during backports. Let me take care of it.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:18 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sounds great! Let me take a look if I could find anything else before
> creating the RC.
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 5:32 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Viraj.
>>
>> I got reviews from Nihal, and committed each version update.
>>
>> If you have access to other scanners, you may also want to consider
>> running
>> that.
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>.
Sounds great! Let me take a look if I could find anything else before
creating the RC.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 5:32 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Thanks Viraj.
>
> I got reviews from Nihal, and committed each version update.
>
> If you have access to other scanners, you may also want to consider running
> that.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Thanks Viraj.
I got reviews from Nihal, and committed each version update.
If you have access to other scanners, you may also want to consider running
that.
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>.
Thank you Istvan! Happy to review the PRs whenever ready.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 5:49 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I was hoping that Hadoop would fix more of its transitive CVEs in 3.4.2...
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 2:39 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > We should update gson, netty, jetty (and perhaps jackson ?) to the latest
> > applicable versions berfore release.
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7697
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7699
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7698
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:40 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If we waited for the Hadoop 3.4.2 release, we should use it :
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7696
> >>
> >> I'm gonna run an OWASP scan to see if there are any easily fixed CVEs.
> >>
> >> Istvan
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:08 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unless there are any blockers, planning to prepare RC sometime next
> week.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:30 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Hadoop release is done.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:40 PM Istvan Toth
> <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >>> >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Perhaps consider waiting for Hadoop 3.4.2.
> >>> >> It's already in the RC phase.
> >>> >> Stoty
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras
> >>> >> (Segment
> >>> >> > scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation
> perf
> >>> >> > improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0
> >>> release
> >>> >> next
> >>> >> > week.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate
> >>> into
> >>> >> > 5.3.0 release.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth
> >>> <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > Thank you Viraj.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the
> >>> 2.6.3
> >>> >> > > update.
> >>> >> > > I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with
> 2.6.
> >>> >> > (though
> >>> >> > > I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update)
> >>> >> > > I know you are investigating this.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681
> >>> for
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> > > 2.5.12 update.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > I'm not sure about updating the default.
> >>> >> > > My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release
> >>> line,
> >>> >> > which
> >>> >> > > is 2.5.
> >>> >> > > On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the
> >>> stable to
> >>> >> > 2.6
> >>> >> > > in the not too distant future,
> >>> >> > > and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to
> >>> change the
> >>> >> > > default in a patch release.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > I don't have a strong opinion either way.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <
> vjasani@apache.org>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but
> >>> please
> >>> >> > > remind
> >>> >> > > > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of
> improvements,
> >>> >> > features
> >>> >> > > > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release.
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have
> >>> had
> >>> >> > recent
> >>> >> > > > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone
> like
> >>> to
> >>> >> > > > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch?
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > We can also use 2.6 profile by default.
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth
> >>> >> > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > > I'll start the thread, Viraj.
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani <
> >>> vjasani@apache.org>
> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module
> >>> for
> >>> >> 5.3.0
> >>> >> > > > > > release.
> >>> >> > > > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus
> and
> >>> >> work
> >>> >> > on
> >>> >> > > > > > removing the profile?
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani <
> >>> >> vjasani@apache.org>
> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
> >>> >> support
> >>> >> > for
> >>> >> > > > it
> >>> >> > > > > in
> >>> >> > > > > > > 5.3.
> >>> >> > > > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep
> it
> >>> as
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> > > last
> >>> >> > > > > > > release, or just remove it now.
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase
> >>> 3.0
> >>> >> > > > pre-patches
> >>> >> > > > > > are
> >>> >> > > > > > > > ready,
> >>> >> > > > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this
> >>> as
> >>> >> > > blocking,
> >>> >> > > > > > > rather
> >>> >> > > > > > > > as finishing
> >>> >> > > > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried
> >>> about
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> > > > amount
> >>> >> > > > > > of
> >>> >> > > > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for
> >>> 5.3.0.
> >>> >> > > > > Backtracking
> >>> >> > > > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward
> >>> >> > > compatibility
> >>> >> > > > > etc
> >>> >> > > > > > > might become painful.
> >>> >> > > > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support
> >>> and
> >>> >> > > spotless
> >>> >> > > > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include
> 5.3.
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final
> >>> >> decision? :)
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth
> >>> >> > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for
> >>> 5.3.
> >>> >> > > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
> >>> support
> >>> >> > for
> >>> >> > > it
> >>> >> > > > > in
> >>> >> > > > > > >> 5.3.
> >>> >> > > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth <
> >>> >> stoty@cloudera.com
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only
> >>> beta-1 is
> >>> >> > > > released
> >>> >> > > > > so
> >>> >> > > > > > >> far,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for
> this.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase
> >>> 3.0
> >>> >> > > > > pre-patches
> >>> >> > > > > > >> are
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > ready,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see
> this
> >>> as
> >>> >> > > > blocking,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> rather
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > as finishing
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release
> >>> with
> >>> >> HBase
> >>> >> > > > 3.0.0
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> release
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have
> >>> followed
> >>> >> for
> >>> >> > > > HBase
> >>> >> > > > > 2
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0
> >>> may be
> >>> >> > > better
> >>> >> > > > > for
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > marketing.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and
> >>> 2->3
> >>> >> > > > transition
> >>> >> > > > > > is
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and
> 2.x
> >>> from
> >>> >> > the
> >>> >> > > > same
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > Phoenix branch,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to
> support
> >>> >> HBase
> >>> >> > 2.x
> >>> >> > > > and
> >>> >> > > > > > 3.x
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > from the same branch,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain
> >>> separate
> >>> >> > > branches
> >>> >> > > > > for
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support
> >>> for
> >>> >> it
> >>> >> > > > without
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase
> >>> 2.x,
> >>> >> they
> >>> >> > > are
> >>> >> > > > > just
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration
> >>> attempts.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > For now,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches
> would
> >>> be
> >>> >> > really
> >>> >> > > > > > helpful
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I
> >>> wish
> >>> >> we
> >>> >> > > could
> >>> >> > > > > > have
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> done
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for
> >>> it at
> >>> >> > > least.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless
> >>> reformat
> >>> >> > now.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ,
> and
> >>> we
> >>> >> can
> >>> >> > > > follow
> >>> >> > > > > > up
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting
> >>> to
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we
> >>> need
> >>> >> to
> >>> >> > > rip
> >>> >> > > > > the
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > band-aid off at some point.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we
> >>> merge
> >>> >> > them
> >>> >> > > > > now,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> then
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > at least this will be both in
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the
> way
> >>> >> when
> >>> >> > > > > > >> backporting.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > Istvan
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani <
> >>> >> > > vjasani@apache.org>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan!
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only
> >>> beta-1 is
> >>> >> > > > released
> >>> >> > > > > > so
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> far,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for
> this.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still
> >>> believe it
> >>> >> > > makes
> >>> >> > > > > more
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> sense
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3
> branch.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> A couple of proposals:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we
> >>> should
> >>> >> > also
> >>> >> > > > > > create
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch
> >>> for 5.x
> >>> >> > > > > releases.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev
> >>> >> version.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release
> >>> with
> >>> >> HBase
> >>> >> > > > 3.0.0
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> release
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have
> >>> followed
> >>> >> for
> >>> >> > > > HBase
> >>> >> > > > > 2
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
> >>> >> reformat.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching,
> otherwise
> >>> it's
> >>> >> > > just a
> >>> >> > > > > lot
> >>> >> > > > > > >> of
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0
> >>> >> release?
> >>> >> > > For
> >>> >> > > > > now,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches
> would
> >>> be
> >>> >> > really
> >>> >> > > > > > helpful
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I
> >>> wish
> >>> >> we
> >>> >> > > could
> >>> >> > > > > > have
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> done
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for
> >>> it at
> >>> >> > > least.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after
> >>> PHOENIX-7587
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587
> >
> >>> and
> >>> >> > > > > > PHOENIX-7573
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573
> >
> >>> are
> >>> >> > > merged,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> hopefully
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> within a week.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth
> >>> >> > > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is
> >>> out,
> >>> >> but
> >>> >> > > then
> >>> >> > > > > we
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> should
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly
> >>> after
> >>> >> > 3.0.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish)
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation
> patches
> >>> by
> >>> >> me
> >>> >> > and
> >>> >> > > > > > Villo,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> which
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been
> >>> waiting
> >>> >> for
> >>> >> > > > review
> >>> >> > > > > > for
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> some
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their
> >>> current
> >>> >> > > iteration
> >>> >> > > > > was
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> already
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
> >>> >> reformat.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching,
> >>> otherwise
> >>> >> it's
> >>> >> > > > just a
> >>> >> > > > > > >> lot of
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding
> >>> HBase
> >>> >> 3.0
> >>> >> > > > > > preparation
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the
> >>> >> > reformat)
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > Istvan
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani <
> >>> >> > > > vjasani@apache.org
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi,
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch
> >>> from
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> > > > master
> >>> >> > > > > > >> branch
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > sometime next week.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch.
> >>> While
> >>> >> > > > majority
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> features
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to
> >>> ensure we
> >>> >> > have
> >>> >> > > a
> >>> >> > > > > > smooth
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > release.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes
> >>> you
> >>> >> are
> >>> >> > > > > planning
> >>> >> > > > > > >> to
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release.
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > --
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
> >>> >> https://twitter.com/cloudera
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > > > [image:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <
> >>> >> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> >>> >> > > > > [image:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> Cloudera
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > on LinkedIn] <
> >>> https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > --
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
> >>> https://twitter.com/cloudera
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > > [image:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <
> >>> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> >>> >> > > [image:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <
> >>> >> > > https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > > > > >> >
> >>> >> > > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> --
> >>> >> > > > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >>> >> > > > > > >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >>> >> > > > > > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
> >>> https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> >>> >> > > [image:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <
> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera
> >>> >
> >>> >> > [image:
> >>> >> > > > > > >> Cloudera
> >>> >> > > > > > >> on LinkedIn] <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >>> >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > --
> >>> >> > > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >>> >> > > > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >>> >> > > > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >>> >> > > > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >>> >> > > > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> >>> >> [image:
> >>> >> > > > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> >>> [image:
> >>> >> > > > Cloudera
> >>> >> > > > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >>> >> > > > > ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > > > ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > --
> >>> >> > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >>> >> > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >>> >> > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >>> >> > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >>> >> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> >>> [image:
> >>> >> > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> [image:
> >>> >> > Cloudera
> >>> >> > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >>> >> > > ------------------------------
> >>> >> > > ------------------------------
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >>> >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >>> >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >>> >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >>> >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> >>> >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> >>> >> Cloudera
> >>> >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >>> >> ------------------------------
> >>> >> ------------------------------
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> >> Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > ------------------------------
> > ------------------------------
> >
>
>
> --
> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
I was hoping that Hadoop would fix more of its transitive CVEs in 3.4.2...
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 2:39 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> We should update gson, netty, jetty (and perhaps jackson ?) to the latest
> applicable versions berfore release.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7697
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7699
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7698
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:40 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> If we waited for the Hadoop 3.4.2 release, we should use it :
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7696
>>
>> I'm gonna run an OWASP scan to see if there are any easily fixed CVEs.
>>
>> Istvan
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:08 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless there are any blockers, planning to prepare RC sometime next week.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:30 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hadoop release is done.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:40 PM Istvan Toth <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Perhaps consider waiting for Hadoop 3.4.2.
>>> >> It's already in the RC phase.
>>> >> Stoty
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras
>>> >> (Segment
>>> >> > scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation perf
>>> >> > improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0
>>> release
>>> >> next
>>> >> > week.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate
>>> into
>>> >> > 5.3.0 release.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth
>>> <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> >> >
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Thank you Viraj.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the
>>> 2.6.3
>>> >> > > update.
>>> >> > > I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with 2.6.
>>> >> > (though
>>> >> > > I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update)
>>> >> > > I know you are investigating this.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681
>>> for
>>> >> the
>>> >> > > 2.5.12 update.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I'm not sure about updating the default.
>>> >> > > My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release
>>> line,
>>> >> > which
>>> >> > > is 2.5.
>>> >> > > On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the
>>> stable to
>>> >> > 2.6
>>> >> > > in the not too distant future,
>>> >> > > and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to
>>> change the
>>> >> > > default in a patch release.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I don't have a strong opinion either way.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but
>>> please
>>> >> > > remind
>>> >> > > > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of improvements,
>>> >> > features
>>> >> > > > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have
>>> had
>>> >> > recent
>>> >> > > > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone like
>>> to
>>> >> > > > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch?
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > We can also use 2.6 profile by default.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth
>>> >> > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > > I'll start the thread, Viraj.
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani <
>>> vjasani@apache.org>
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module
>>> for
>>> >> 5.3.0
>>> >> > > > > > release.
>>> >> > > > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus and
>>> >> work
>>> >> > on
>>> >> > > > > > removing the profile?
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani <
>>> >> vjasani@apache.org>
>>> >> > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
>>> >> support
>>> >> > for
>>> >> > > > it
>>> >> > > > > in
>>> >> > > > > > > 5.3.
>>> >> > > > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep it
>>> as
>>> >> the
>>> >> > > last
>>> >> > > > > > > release, or just remove it now.
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase
>>> 3.0
>>> >> > > > pre-patches
>>> >> > > > > > are
>>> >> > > > > > > > ready,
>>> >> > > > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this
>>> as
>>> >> > > blocking,
>>> >> > > > > > > rather
>>> >> > > > > > > > as finishing
>>> >> > > > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried
>>> about
>>> >> the
>>> >> > > > amount
>>> >> > > > > > of
>>> >> > > > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for
>>> 5.3.0.
>>> >> > > > > Backtracking
>>> >> > > > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward
>>> >> > > compatibility
>>> >> > > > > etc
>>> >> > > > > > > might become painful.
>>> >> > > > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support
>>> and
>>> >> > > spotless
>>> >> > > > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include 5.3.
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final
>>> >> decision? :)
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth
>>> >> > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for
>>> 5.3.
>>> >> > > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
>>> support
>>> >> > for
>>> >> > > it
>>> >> > > > > in
>>> >> > > > > > >> 5.3.
>>> >> > > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth <
>>> >> stoty@cloudera.com
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only
>>> beta-1 is
>>> >> > > > released
>>> >> > > > > so
>>> >> > > > > > >> far,
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase
>>> 3.0
>>> >> > > > > pre-patches
>>> >> > > > > > >> are
>>> >> > > > > > >> > ready,
>>> >> > > > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this
>>> as
>>> >> > > > blocking,
>>> >> > > > > > >> rather
>>> >> > > > > > >> > as finishing
>>> >> > > > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release
>>> with
>>> >> HBase
>>> >> > > > 3.0.0
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> release
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have
>>> followed
>>> >> for
>>> >> > > > HBase
>>> >> > > > > 2
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0
>>> may be
>>> >> > > better
>>> >> > > > > for
>>> >> > > > > > >> > marketing.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and
>>> 2->3
>>> >> > > > transition
>>> >> > > > > > is
>>> >> > > > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks
>>> >> > > > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and 2.x
>>> from
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > > > same
>>> >> > > > > > >> > Phoenix branch,
>>> >> > > > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to support
>>> >> HBase
>>> >> > 2.x
>>> >> > > > and
>>> >> > > > > > 3.x
>>> >> > > > > > >> > from the same branch,
>>> >> > > > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain
>>> separate
>>> >> > > branches
>>> >> > > > > for
>>> >> > > > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0
>>> >> > > > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support
>>> for
>>> >> it
>>> >> > > > without
>>> >> > > > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase
>>> 2.x,
>>> >> they
>>> >> > > are
>>> >> > > > > just
>>> >> > > > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs
>>> >> > > > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration
>>> attempts.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > For now,
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would
>>> be
>>> >> > really
>>> >> > > > > > helpful
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I
>>> wish
>>> >> we
>>> >> > > could
>>> >> > > > > > have
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> done
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for
>>> it at
>>> >> > > least.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern.
>>> >> > > > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless
>>> reformat
>>> >> > now.
>>> >> > > > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ, and
>>> we
>>> >> can
>>> >> > > > follow
>>> >> > > > > > up
>>> >> > > > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting
>>> to
>>> >> > > > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but
>>> >> > > > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we
>>> need
>>> >> to
>>> >> > > rip
>>> >> > > > > the
>>> >> > > > > > >> > band-aid off at some point.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we
>>> merge
>>> >> > them
>>> >> > > > > now,
>>> >> > > > > > >> then
>>> >> > > > > > >> > at least this will be both in
>>> >> > > > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the way
>>> >> when
>>> >> > > > > > >> backporting.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > Istvan
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani <
>>> >> > > vjasani@apache.org>
>>> >> > > > > > >> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan!
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only
>>> beta-1 is
>>> >> > > > released
>>> >> > > > > > so
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> far,
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still
>>> believe it
>>> >> > > makes
>>> >> > > > > more
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> sense
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3 branch.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> A couple of proposals:
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we
>>> should
>>> >> > also
>>> >> > > > > > create
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch
>>> for 5.x
>>> >> > > > > releases.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev
>>> >> version.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release
>>> with
>>> >> HBase
>>> >> > > > 3.0.0
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> release
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have
>>> followed
>>> >> for
>>> >> > > > HBase
>>> >> > > > > 2
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
>>> >> reformat.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching, otherwise
>>> it's
>>> >> > > just a
>>> >> > > > > lot
>>> >> > > > > > >> of
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0
>>> >> release?
>>> >> > > For
>>> >> > > > > now,
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would
>>> be
>>> >> > really
>>> >> > > > > > helpful
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I
>>> wish
>>> >> we
>>> >> > > could
>>> >> > > > > > have
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> done
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for
>>> it at
>>> >> > > least.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after
>>> PHOENIX-7587
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587>
>>> and
>>> >> > > > > > PHOENIX-7573
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573>
>>> are
>>> >> > > merged,
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> hopefully
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> within a week.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth
>>> >> > > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is
>>> out,
>>> >> but
>>> >> > > then
>>> >> > > > > we
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> should
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly
>>> after
>>> >> > 3.0.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish)
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation patches
>>> by
>>> >> me
>>> >> > and
>>> >> > > > > > Villo,
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> which
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been
>>> waiting
>>> >> for
>>> >> > > > review
>>> >> > > > > > for
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> some
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them,
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their
>>> current
>>> >> > > iteration
>>> >> > > > > was
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> already
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
>>> >> reformat.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching,
>>> otherwise
>>> >> it's
>>> >> > > > just a
>>> >> > > > > > >> lot of
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding
>>> HBase
>>> >> 3.0
>>> >> > > > > > preparation
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the
>>> >> > reformat)
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > Istvan
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani <
>>> >> > > > vjasani@apache.org
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi,
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch
>>> from
>>> >> the
>>> >> > > > master
>>> >> > > > > > >> branch
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > sometime next week.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch.
>>> While
>>> >> > > > majority
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> features
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to
>>> ensure we
>>> >> > have
>>> >> > > a
>>> >> > > > > > smooth
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > release.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes
>>> you
>>> >> are
>>> >> > > > > planning
>>> >> > > > > > >> to
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release.
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > --
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
>>> >> https://twitter.com/cloudera
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > > > [image:
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <
>>> >> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>>> >> > > > > [image:
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> Cloudera
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > on LinkedIn] <
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
>>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >> > --
>>> >> > > > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>>> >> > > > > > >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>>> >> > > > > > >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>>> >> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>>> >> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
>>> https://twitter.com/cloudera
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > > [image:
>>> >> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <
>>> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>>> >> > > [image:
>>> >> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <
>>> >> > > https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>>> >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
>>> >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
>>> >> > > > > > >> >
>>> >> > > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > > >> --
>>> >> > > > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>>> >> > > > > > >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>>> >> > > > > > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>>> >> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>>> >> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
>>> https://twitter.com/cloudera>
>>> >> > > [image:
>>> >> > > > > > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera
>>> >
>>> >> > [image:
>>> >> > > > > > >> Cloudera
>>> >> > > > > > >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>>> >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
>>> >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
>>> >> > > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > --
>>> >> > > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>>> >> > > > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>>> >> > > > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>>> >> > > > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>>> >> > > > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
>>> >> [image:
>>> >> > > > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>>> [image:
>>> >> > > > Cloudera
>>> >> > > > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>>> >> > > > > ------------------------------
>>> >> > > > > ------------------------------
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > --
>>> >> > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>>> >> > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>>> >> > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>>> >> > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>>> >> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
>>> [image:
>>> >> > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
>>> >> > Cloudera
>>> >> > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>>> >> > > ------------------------------
>>> >> > > ------------------------------
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>>> >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>>> >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>>> >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>>> >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
>>> >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
>>> >> Cloudera
>>> >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>>> >> ------------------------------
>>> >> ------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
>> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
>> Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> ------------------------------
>> ------------------------------
>>
>
>
> --
> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
--
*István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
*Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
[image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
[image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
------------------------------
------------------------------
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
We should update gson, netty, jetty (and perhaps jackson ?) to the latest
applicable versions berfore release.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7697
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7699
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7698
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:40 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> If we waited for the Hadoop 3.4.2 release, we should use it :
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7696
>
> I'm gonna run an OWASP scan to see if there are any easily fixed CVEs.
>
> Istvan
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:08 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Unless there are any blockers, planning to prepare RC sometime next week.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:30 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hadoop release is done.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:40 PM Istvan Toth <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Perhaps consider waiting for Hadoop 3.4.2.
>> >> It's already in the RC phase.
>> >> Stoty
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras
>> >> (Segment
>> >> > scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation perf
>> >> > improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0 release
>> >> next
>> >> > week.
>> >> >
>> >> > Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate
>> into
>> >> > 5.3.0 release.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth
>> <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Thank you Viraj.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the
>> 2.6.3
>> >> > > update.
>> >> > > I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with 2.6.
>> >> > (though
>> >> > > I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update)
>> >> > > I know you are investigating this.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681 for
>> >> the
>> >> > > 2.5.12 update.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I'm not sure about updating the default.
>> >> > > My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release
>> line,
>> >> > which
>> >> > > is 2.5.
>> >> > > On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the
>> stable to
>> >> > 2.6
>> >> > > in the not too distant future,
>> >> > > and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to change
>> the
>> >> > > default in a patch release.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I don't have a strong opinion either way.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but
>> please
>> >> > > remind
>> >> > > > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of improvements,
>> >> > features
>> >> > > > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have
>> had
>> >> > recent
>> >> > > > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone like
>> to
>> >> > > > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > We can also use 2.6 profile by default.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth
>> >> > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > I'll start the thread, Viraj.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani <
>> vjasani@apache.org>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module for
>> >> 5.3.0
>> >> > > > > > release.
>> >> > > > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus and
>> >> work
>> >> > on
>> >> > > > > > removing the profile?
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani <
>> >> vjasani@apache.org>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
>> >> support
>> >> > for
>> >> > > > it
>> >> > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > 5.3.
>> >> > > > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep it
>> as
>> >> the
>> >> > > last
>> >> > > > > > > release, or just remove it now.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
>> >> > > > pre-patches
>> >> > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > > ready,
>> >> > > > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
>> >> > > blocking,
>> >> > > > > > > rather
>> >> > > > > > > > as finishing
>> >> > > > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried
>> about
>> >> the
>> >> > > > amount
>> >> > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for
>> 5.3.0.
>> >> > > > > Backtracking
>> >> > > > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward
>> >> > > compatibility
>> >> > > > > etc
>> >> > > > > > > might become painful.
>> >> > > > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support and
>> >> > > spotless
>> >> > > > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include 5.3.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final
>> >> decision? :)
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth
>> >> > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for 5.3.
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
>> support
>> >> > for
>> >> > > it
>> >> > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > >> 5.3.
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth <
>> >> stoty@cloudera.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1
>> is
>> >> > > > released
>> >> > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > >> far,
>> >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase
>> 3.0
>> >> > > > > pre-patches
>> >> > > > > > >> are
>> >> > > > > > >> > ready,
>> >> > > > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this
>> as
>> >> > > > blocking,
>> >> > > > > > >> rather
>> >> > > > > > >> > as finishing
>> >> > > > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with
>> >> HBase
>> >> > > > 3.0.0
>> >> > > > > > >> >> release
>> >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have
>> followed
>> >> for
>> >> > > > HBase
>> >> > > > > 2
>> >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0 may
>> be
>> >> > > better
>> >> > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > >> > marketing.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and
>> 2->3
>> >> > > > transition
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks
>> >> > > > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and 2.x
>> from
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > same
>> >> > > > > > >> > Phoenix branch,
>> >> > > > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to support
>> >> HBase
>> >> > 2.x
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > 3.x
>> >> > > > > > >> > from the same branch,
>> >> > > > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain
>> separate
>> >> > > branches
>> >> > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0
>> >> > > > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support
>> for
>> >> it
>> >> > > > without
>> >> > > > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase 2.x,
>> >> they
>> >> > > are
>> >> > > > > just
>> >> > > > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs
>> >> > > > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration
>> attempts.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > For now,
>> >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would
>> be
>> >> > really
>> >> > > > > > helpful
>> >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I
>> wish
>> >> we
>> >> > > could
>> >> > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > >> >> done
>> >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it
>> at
>> >> > > least.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern.
>> >> > > > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless
>> reformat
>> >> > now.
>> >> > > > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ, and
>> we
>> >> can
>> >> > > > follow
>> >> > > > > > up
>> >> > > > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting to
>> >> > > > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but
>> >> > > > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we
>> need
>> >> to
>> >> > > rip
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > >> > band-aid off at some point.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we
>> merge
>> >> > them
>> >> > > > > now,
>> >> > > > > > >> then
>> >> > > > > > >> > at least this will be both in
>> >> > > > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the way
>> >> when
>> >> > > > > > >> backporting.
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > Istvan
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani <
>> >> > > vjasani@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan!
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only
>> beta-1 is
>> >> > > > released
>> >> > > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > >> >> far,
>> >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still
>> believe it
>> >> > > makes
>> >> > > > > more
>> >> > > > > > >> >> sense
>> >> > > > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3 branch.
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> A couple of proposals:
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we
>> should
>> >> > also
>> >> > > > > > create
>> >> > > > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch for
>> 5.x
>> >> > > > > releases.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev
>> >> version.
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with
>> >> HBase
>> >> > > > 3.0.0
>> >> > > > > > >> >> release
>> >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have
>> followed
>> >> for
>> >> > > > HBase
>> >> > > > > 2
>> >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
>> >> reformat.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching, otherwise
>> it's
>> >> > > just a
>> >> > > > > lot
>> >> > > > > > >> of
>> >> > > > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice.
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0
>> >> release?
>> >> > > For
>> >> > > > > now,
>> >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would
>> be
>> >> > really
>> >> > > > > > helpful
>> >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I
>> wish
>> >> we
>> >> > > could
>> >> > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > >> >> done
>> >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it
>> at
>> >> > > least.
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after PHOENIX-7587
>> >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587>
>> and
>> >> > > > > > PHOENIX-7573
>> >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573>
>> are
>> >> > > merged,
>> >> > > > > > >> >> hopefully
>> >> > > > > > >> >> within a week.
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth
>> >> > > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is
>> out,
>> >> but
>> >> > > then
>> >> > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > >> >> should
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly
>> after
>> >> > 3.0.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish)
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation patches
>> by
>> >> me
>> >> > and
>> >> > > > > > Villo,
>> >> > > > > > >> >> which
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been
>> waiting
>> >> for
>> >> > > > review
>> >> > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > >> >> some
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them,
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their current
>> >> > > iteration
>> >> > > > > was
>> >> > > > > > >> >> already
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
>> >> reformat.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching, otherwise
>> >> it's
>> >> > > > just a
>> >> > > > > > >> lot of
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding HBase
>> >> 3.0
>> >> > > > > > preparation
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the
>> >> > reformat)
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > Istvan
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani <
>> >> > > > vjasani@apache.org
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi,
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch
>> from
>> >> the
>> >> > > > master
>> >> > > > > > >> branch
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > sometime next week.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch.
>> While
>> >> > > > majority
>> >> > > > > > >> >> features
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to ensure
>> we
>> >> > have
>> >> > > a
>> >> > > > > > smooth
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > release.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes
>> you
>> >> are
>> >> > > > > planning
>> >> > > > > > >> to
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release.
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > --
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
>> >> https://twitter.com/cloudera
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > [image:
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <
>> >> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>> >> > > > > [image:
>> >> > > > > > >> >> Cloudera
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > on LinkedIn] <
>> https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
>> >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
>> >> > > > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > --
>> >> > > > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> >> > > > > > >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> >> > > > > > >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> >> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> >> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
>> https://twitter.com/cloudera
>> >> >
>> >> > > > [image:
>> >> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <
>> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>> >> > > [image:
>> >> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <
>> >> > > https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
>> >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
>> >> > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >> --
>> >> > > > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> >> > > > > > >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> >> > > > > > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> >> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> >> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
>> https://twitter.com/cloudera>
>> >> > > [image:
>> >> > > > > > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>> >> > [image:
>> >> > > > > > >> Cloudera
>> >> > > > > > >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
>> >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
>> >> > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> >> > > > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> >> > > > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> >> > > > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> >> > > > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
>> >> [image:
>> >> > > > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>> [image:
>> >> > > > Cloudera
>> >> > > > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> >> > > > > ------------------------------
>> >> > > > > ------------------------------
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> >> > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> >> > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> >> > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> >> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
>> [image:
>> >> > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
>> >> > Cloudera
>> >> > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> >> > > ------------------------------
>> >> > > ------------------------------
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
>> >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
>> >> Cloudera
>> >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
--
*István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
*Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
[image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
[image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
------------------------------
------------------------------
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
If we waited for the Hadoop 3.4.2 release, we should use it :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7696
I'm gonna run an OWASP scan to see if there are any easily fixed CVEs.
Istvan
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:08 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
> Unless there are any blockers, planning to prepare RC sometime next week.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:30 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hadoop release is done.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:40 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps consider waiting for Hadoop 3.4.2.
> >> It's already in the RC phase.
> >> Stoty
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras
> >> (Segment
> >> > scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation perf
> >> > improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0 release
> >> next
> >> > week.
> >> >
> >> > Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate
> into
> >> > 5.3.0 release.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth
> <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Thank you Viraj.
> >> > >
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the 2.6.3
> >> > > update.
> >> > > I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with 2.6.
> >> > (though
> >> > > I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update)
> >> > > I know you are investigating this.
> >> > >
> >> > > Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681 for
> >> the
> >> > > 2.5.12 update.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm not sure about updating the default.
> >> > > My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release line,
> >> > which
> >> > > is 2.5.
> >> > > On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the stable
> to
> >> > 2.6
> >> > > in the not too distant future,
> >> > > and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to change
> the
> >> > > default in a patch release.
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't have a strong opinion either way.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but
> please
> >> > > remind
> >> > > > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of improvements,
> >> > features
> >> > > > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have had
> >> > recent
> >> > > > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone like to
> >> > > > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We can also use 2.6 profile by default.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth
> >> > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >> > > >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I'll start the thread, Viraj.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani <
> vjasani@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module for
> >> 5.3.0
> >> > > > > > release.
> >> > > > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus and
> >> work
> >> > on
> >> > > > > > removing the profile?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani <
> >> vjasani@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
> >> support
> >> > for
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > 5.3.
> >> > > > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep it as
> >> the
> >> > > last
> >> > > > > > > release, or just remove it now.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
> >> > > > pre-patches
> >> > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > ready,
> >> > > > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
> >> > > blocking,
> >> > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > > > as finishing
> >> > > > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried about
> >> the
> >> > > > amount
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for 5.3.0.
> >> > > > > Backtracking
> >> > > > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward
> >> > > compatibility
> >> > > > > etc
> >> > > > > > > might become painful.
> >> > > > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support and
> >> > > spotless
> >> > > > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include 5.3.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final
> >> decision? :)
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth
> >> > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for 5.3.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
> support
> >> > for
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> 5.3.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth <
> >> stoty@cloudera.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1
> is
> >> > > > released
> >> > > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> far,
> >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
> >> > > > > pre-patches
> >> > > > > > >> are
> >> > > > > > >> > ready,
> >> > > > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
> >> > > > blocking,
> >> > > > > > >> rather
> >> > > > > > >> > as finishing
> >> > > > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with
> >> HBase
> >> > > > 3.0.0
> >> > > > > > >> >> release
> >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed
> >> for
> >> > > > HBase
> >> > > > > 2
> >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0 may
> be
> >> > > better
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> > marketing.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and 2->3
> >> > > > transition
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks
> >> > > > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and 2.x
> from
> >> > the
> >> > > > same
> >> > > > > > >> > Phoenix branch,
> >> > > > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to support
> >> HBase
> >> > 2.x
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > 3.x
> >> > > > > > >> > from the same branch,
> >> > > > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain separate
> >> > > branches
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0
> >> > > > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support for
> >> it
> >> > > > without
> >> > > > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase 2.x,
> >> they
> >> > > are
> >> > > > > just
> >> > > > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs
> >> > > > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration attempts.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > For now,
> >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be
> >> > really
> >> > > > > > helpful
> >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish
> >> we
> >> > > could
> >> > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> done
> >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it
> at
> >> > > least.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern.
> >> > > > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless
> reformat
> >> > now.
> >> > > > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ, and we
> >> can
> >> > > > follow
> >> > > > > > up
> >> > > > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting to
> >> > > > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but
> >> > > > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we
> need
> >> to
> >> > > rip
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> > band-aid off at some point.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we
> merge
> >> > them
> >> > > > > now,
> >> > > > > > >> then
> >> > > > > > >> > at least this will be both in
> >> > > > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the way
> >> when
> >> > > > > > >> backporting.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > Istvan
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani <
> >> > > vjasani@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan!
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1
> is
> >> > > > released
> >> > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> >> far,
> >> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
> >> > > > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still believe
> it
> >> > > makes
> >> > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> sense
> >> > > > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3 branch.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> A couple of proposals:
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we
> should
> >> > also
> >> > > > > > create
> >> > > > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch for
> 5.x
> >> > > > > releases.
> >> > > > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev
> >> version.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with
> >> HBase
> >> > > > 3.0.0
> >> > > > > > >> >> release
> >> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed
> >> for
> >> > > > HBase
> >> > > > > 2
> >> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
> >> reformat.
> >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching, otherwise
> it's
> >> > > just a
> >> > > > > lot
> >> > > > > > >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0
> >> release?
> >> > > For
> >> > > > > now,
> >> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be
> >> > really
> >> > > > > > helpful
> >> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish
> >> we
> >> > > could
> >> > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> done
> >> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it
> at
> >> > > least.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after PHOENIX-7587
> >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587>
> and
> >> > > > > > PHOENIX-7573
> >> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573>
> are
> >> > > merged,
> >> > > > > > >> >> hopefully
> >> > > > > > >> >> within a week.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth
> >> > > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is out,
> >> but
> >> > > then
> >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly
> after
> >> > 3.0.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish)
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation patches by
> >> me
> >> > and
> >> > > > > > Villo,
> >> > > > > > >> >> which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been waiting
> >> for
> >> > > > review
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their current
> >> > > iteration
> >> > > > > was
> >> > > > > > >> >> already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035
> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036
> >> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
> >> reformat.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching, otherwise
> >> it's
> >> > > > just a
> >> > > > > > >> lot of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding HBase
> >> 3.0
> >> > > > > > preparation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the
> >> > reformat)
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Istvan
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani <
> >> > > > vjasani@apache.org
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch from
> >> the
> >> > > > master
> >> > > > > > >> branch
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > sometime next week.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch.
> While
> >> > > > majority
> >> > > > > > >> >> features
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to ensure
> we
> >> > have
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > smooth
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > release.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes you
> >> are
> >> > > > > planning
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >> > > > > > >> >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
> >> https://twitter.com/cloudera
> >> > >
> >> > > > > > [image:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <
> >> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> >> > > > > [image:
> >> > > > > > >> >> Cloudera
> >> > > > > > >> >> > on LinkedIn] <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> >> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > --
> >> > > > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >> > > > > > >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >> > > > > > >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
> https://twitter.com/cloudera
> >> >
> >> > > > [image:
> >> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera
> >
> >> > > [image:
> >> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <
> >> > > https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
> >> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> --
> >> > > > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >> > > > > > >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >> > > > > > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera
> >
> >> > > [image:
> >> > > > > > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> >> > [image:
> >> > > > > > >> Cloudera
> >> > > > > > >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
> >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >> > > > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >> > > > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >> > > > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >> > > > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> >> [image:
> >> > > > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> [image:
> >> > > > Cloudera
> >> > > > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >> > > > > ------------------------------
> >> > > > > ------------------------------
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >> > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >> > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >> > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> >> > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> >> > Cloudera
> >> > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >> > > ------------------------------
> >> > > ------------------------------
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> >> Cloudera
> >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >
>
--
*István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
*Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
[image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
[image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
------------------------------
------------------------------
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>.
Unless there are any blockers, planning to prepare RC sometime next week.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:30 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hadoop release is done.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:40 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps consider waiting for Hadoop 3.4.2.
>> It's already in the RC phase.
>> Stoty
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras
>> (Segment
>> > scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation perf
>> > improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0 release
>> next
>> > week.
>> >
>> > Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate into
>> > 5.3.0 release.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thank you Viraj.
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the 2.6.3
>> > > update.
>> > > I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with 2.6.
>> > (though
>> > > I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update)
>> > > I know you are investigating this.
>> > >
>> > > Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681 for
>> the
>> > > 2.5.12 update.
>> > >
>> > > I'm not sure about updating the default.
>> > > My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release line,
>> > which
>> > > is 2.5.
>> > > On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the stable to
>> > 2.6
>> > > in the not too distant future,
>> > > and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to change the
>> > > default in a patch release.
>> > >
>> > > I don't have a strong opinion either way.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but please
>> > > remind
>> > > > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of improvements,
>> > features
>> > > > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release.
>> > > >
>> > > > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have had
>> > recent
>> > > > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone like to
>> > > > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch?
>> > > >
>> > > > We can also use 2.6 profile by default.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth
>> > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I'll start the thread, Viraj.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module for
>> 5.3.0
>> > > > > > release.
>> > > > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus and
>> work
>> > on
>> > > > > > removing the profile?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani <
>> vjasani@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop
>> support
>> > for
>> > > > it
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > 5.3.
>> > > > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep it as
>> the
>> > > last
>> > > > > > > release, or just remove it now.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
>> > > > pre-patches
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > ready,
>> > > > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
>> > > blocking,
>> > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > > > as finishing
>> > > > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried about
>> the
>> > > > amount
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for 5.3.0.
>> > > > > Backtracking
>> > > > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward
>> > > compatibility
>> > > > > etc
>> > > > > > > might become painful.
>> > > > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support and
>> > > spotless
>> > > > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include 5.3.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final
>> decision? :)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth
>> > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for 5.3.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop support
>> > for
>> > > it
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> 5.3.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth <
>> stoty@cloudera.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 is
>> > > > released
>> > > > > so
>> > > > > > >> far,
>> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
>> > > > > pre-patches
>> > > > > > >> are
>> > > > > > >> > ready,
>> > > > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
>> > > > blocking,
>> > > > > > >> rather
>> > > > > > >> > as finishing
>> > > > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with
>> HBase
>> > > > 3.0.0
>> > > > > > >> >> release
>> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed
>> for
>> > > > HBase
>> > > > > 2
>> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0 may be
>> > > better
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> > marketing.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and 2->3
>> > > > transition
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks
>> > > > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and 2.x from
>> > the
>> > > > same
>> > > > > > >> > Phoenix branch,
>> > > > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to support
>> HBase
>> > 2.x
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > 3.x
>> > > > > > >> > from the same branch,
>> > > > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain separate
>> > > branches
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0
>> > > > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support for
>> it
>> > > > without
>> > > > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase 2.x,
>> they
>> > > are
>> > > > > just
>> > > > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs
>> > > > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration attempts.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > For now,
>> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be
>> > really
>> > > > > > helpful
>> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish
>> we
>> > > could
>> > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> done
>> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it at
>> > > least.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern.
>> > > > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless reformat
>> > now.
>> > > > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ, and we
>> can
>> > > > follow
>> > > > > > up
>> > > > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting to
>> > > > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but
>> > > > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we need
>> to
>> > > rip
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> > band-aid off at some point.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we merge
>> > them
>> > > > > now,
>> > > > > > >> then
>> > > > > > >> > at least this will be both in
>> > > > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the way
>> when
>> > > > > > >> backporting.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > Istvan
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani <
>> > > vjasani@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan!
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 is
>> > > > released
>> > > > > > so
>> > > > > > >> >> far,
>> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
>> > > > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still believe it
>> > > makes
>> > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> sense
>> > > > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3 branch.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> A couple of proposals:
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we should
>> > also
>> > > > > > create
>> > > > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch for 5.x
>> > > > > releases.
>> > > > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev
>> version.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with
>> HBase
>> > > > 3.0.0
>> > > > > > >> >> release
>> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed
>> for
>> > > > HBase
>> > > > > 2
>> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
>> reformat.
>> > > > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching, otherwise it's
>> > > just a
>> > > > > lot
>> > > > > > >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0
>> release?
>> > > For
>> > > > > now,
>> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be
>> > really
>> > > > > > helpful
>> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish
>> we
>> > > could
>> > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> done
>> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it at
>> > > least.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after PHOENIX-7587
>> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587> and
>> > > > > > PHOENIX-7573
>> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573> are
>> > > merged,
>> > > > > > >> >> hopefully
>> > > > > > >> >> within a week.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth
>> > > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is out,
>> but
>> > > then
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> should
>> > > > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a
>> > > > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly after
>> > 3.0.
>> > > > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish)
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation patches by
>> me
>> > and
>> > > > > > Villo,
>> > > > > > >> >> which
>> > > > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will
>> > > > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been waiting
>> for
>> > > > review
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> some
>> > > > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them,
>> > > > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their current
>> > > iteration
>> > > > > was
>> > > > > > >> >> already
>> > > > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035
>> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036
>> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
>> reformat.
>> > > > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching, otherwise
>> it's
>> > > > just a
>> > > > > > >> lot of
>> > > > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding HBase
>> 3.0
>> > > > > > preparation
>> > > > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as
>> > > > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the
>> > reformat)
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > Istvan
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani <
>> > > > vjasani@apache.org
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi,
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch from
>> the
>> > > > master
>> > > > > > >> branch
>> > > > > > >> >> > > sometime next week.
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch. While
>> > > > majority
>> > > > > > >> >> features
>> > > > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to ensure we
>> > have
>> > > a
>> > > > > > smooth
>> > > > > > >> >> > > release.
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes you
>> are
>> > > > > planning
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release.
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> > > > > > >> >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> > > > > > >> >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
>> https://twitter.com/cloudera
>> > >
>> > > > > > [image:
>> > > > > > >> >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <
>> https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>> > > > > [image:
>> > > > > > >> >> Cloudera
>> > > > > > >> >> > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera
>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
>> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > --
>> > > > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> > > > > > >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> > > > > > >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera
>> >
>> > > > [image:
>> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>> > > [image:
>> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <
>> > > https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
>> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> > > > > > >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> > > > > > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
>> > > [image:
>> > > > > > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
>> > [image:
>> > > > > > >> Cloudera
>> > > > > > >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
>> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> > > > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> > > > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> > > > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> > > > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
>> [image:
>> > > > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
>> > > > Cloudera
>> > > > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> > > > > ------------------------------
>> > > > > ------------------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
>> > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
>> > Cloudera
>> > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> > > ------------------------------
>> > > ------------------------------
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
>> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
>> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
>> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
>> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
>> Cloudera
>> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
>> ------------------------------
>> ------------------------------
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>.
Hadoop release is done.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:40 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Perhaps consider waiting for Hadoop 3.4.2.
> It's already in the RC phase.
> Stoty
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras (Segment
> > scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation perf
> > improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0 release
> next
> > week.
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate into
> > 5.3.0 release.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Viraj.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the 2.6.3
> > > update.
> > > I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with 2.6.
> > (though
> > > I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update)
> > > I know you are investigating this.
> > >
> > > Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681 for the
> > > 2.5.12 update.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure about updating the default.
> > > My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release line,
> > which
> > > is 2.5.
> > > On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the stable to
> > 2.6
> > > in the not too distant future,
> > > and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to change the
> > > default in a patch release.
> > >
> > > I don't have a strong opinion either way.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but please
> > > remind
> > > > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of improvements,
> > features
> > > > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release.
> > > >
> > > > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have had
> > recent
> > > > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone like to
> > > > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch?
> > > >
> > > > We can also use 2.6 profile by default.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth
> > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'll start the thread, Viraj.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module for
> 5.3.0
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus and work
> > on
> > > > > > removing the profile?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani <vjasani@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop support
> > for
> > > > it
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > 5.3.
> > > > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep it as
> the
> > > last
> > > > > > > release, or just remove it now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
> > > > pre-patches
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > ready,
> > > > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
> > > blocking,
> > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > as finishing
> > > > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried about
> the
> > > > amount
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for 5.3.0.
> > > > > Backtracking
> > > > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward
> > > compatibility
> > > > > etc
> > > > > > > might become painful.
> > > > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support and
> > > spotless
> > > > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include 5.3.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final decision?
> :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth
> > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for 5.3.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop support
> > for
> > > it
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> 5.3.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth <
> stoty@cloudera.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 is
> > > > released
> > > > > so
> > > > > > >> far,
> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
> > > > > pre-patches
> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > >> > ready,
> > > > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
> > > > blocking,
> > > > > > >> rather
> > > > > > >> > as finishing
> > > > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with
> HBase
> > > > 3.0.0
> > > > > > >> >> release
> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed
> for
> > > > HBase
> > > > > 2
> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0 may be
> > > better
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > marketing.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and 2->3
> > > > transition
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks
> > > > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and 2.x from
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > > >> > Phoenix branch,
> > > > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to support HBase
> > 2.x
> > > > and
> > > > > > 3.x
> > > > > > >> > from the same branch,
> > > > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain separate
> > > branches
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0
> > > > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support for it
> > > > without
> > > > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase 2.x,
> they
> > > are
> > > > > just
> > > > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs
> > > > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration attempts.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > For now,
> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be
> > really
> > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish we
> > > could
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> done
> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it at
> > > least.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern.
> > > > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless reformat
> > now.
> > > > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ, and we
> can
> > > > follow
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting to
> > > > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but
> > > > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we need
> to
> > > rip
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > band-aid off at some point.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we merge
> > them
> > > > > now,
> > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > >> > at least this will be both in
> > > > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the way when
> > > > > > >> backporting.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Istvan
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani <
> > > vjasani@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan!
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 is
> > > > released
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> >> far,
> > > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
> > > > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still believe it
> > > makes
> > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> sense
> > > > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3 branch.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> A couple of proposals:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we should
> > also
> > > > > > create
> > > > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch for 5.x
> > > > > releases.
> > > > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev version.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with
> HBase
> > > > 3.0.0
> > > > > > >> >> release
> > > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed
> for
> > > > HBase
> > > > > 2
> > > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
> reformat.
> > > > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching, otherwise it's
> > > just a
> > > > > lot
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0
> release?
> > > For
> > > > > now,
> > > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be
> > really
> > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish we
> > > could
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> done
> > > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it at
> > > least.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after PHOENIX-7587
> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587> and
> > > > > > PHOENIX-7573
> > > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573> are
> > > merged,
> > > > > > >> >> hopefully
> > > > > > >> >> within a week.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth
> > > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is out,
> but
> > > then
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a
> > > > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly after
> > 3.0.
> > > > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish)
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation patches by me
> > and
> > > > > > Villo,
> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will
> > > > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been waiting
> for
> > > > review
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them,
> > > > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their current
> > > iteration
> > > > > was
> > > > > > >> >> already
> > > > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035
> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036
> > > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless
> reformat.
> > > > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching, otherwise
> it's
> > > > just a
> > > > > > >> lot of
> > > > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding HBase 3.0
> > > > > > preparation
> > > > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as
> > > > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the
> > reformat)
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Istvan
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani <
> > > > vjasani@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi,
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch from
> the
> > > > master
> > > > > > >> branch
> > > > > > >> >> > > sometime next week.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch. While
> > > > majority
> > > > > > >> >> features
> > > > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to ensure we
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > > smooth
> > > > > > >> >> > > release.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes you
> are
> > > > > planning
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > --
> > > > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > > > >> >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > > > >> >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <
> https://twitter.com/cloudera
> > >
> > > > > > [image:
> > > > > > >> >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera
> >
> > > > > [image:
> > > > > > >> >> Cloudera
> > > > > > >> >> > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> > > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > --
> > > > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > > > >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > > > >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> > > > [image:
> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> > > [image:
> > > > > > >> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
> > > > > > >> > ------------------------------
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > > > >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > > > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > > > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> > > [image:
> > > > > > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> > [image:
> > > > > > >> Cloudera
> > > > > > >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> [image:
> > > > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> > > > Cloudera
> > > > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> > Cloudera
> > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > ------------------------------
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Phoenix 5.3.0 release plan
Posted by Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Perhaps consider waiting for Hadoop 3.4.2.
It's already in the RC phase.
Stoty
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
> We are getting closer. I am planning to get in a couple of Jiras (Segment
> scan, thread pool tunings for uncovered index and view creation perf
> improvements) and we should be hopefully ready to start 5.3.0 release next
> week.
>
> Please let me know if you have any critical changes to incorporate into
> 5.3.0 release.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Viraj.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7668 is for the 2.6.3
> > update.
> > I have not yet committed that, because of the test hangs with 2.6.
> (though
> > I'm pretty sure that those are not related to the 2.6.3 update)
> > I know you are investigating this.
> >
> > Just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7681 for the
> > 2.5.12 update.
> >
> > I'm not sure about updating the default.
> > My default stance is to use the current HBase "stable" release line,
> which
> > is 2.5.
> > On the other hand, it is expected that HBase will change the stable to
> 2.6
> > in the not too distant future,
> > and releasing 5.3 with the 2.6 default will avoid having to change the
> > default in a patch release.
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion either way.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 8:24 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > We have completed all the work mentioned on this thread, but please
> > remind
> > > me if I am missing something. We also had tons of improvements,
> features
> > > and fixes done for 5.3.0 release.
> > >
> > > We are almost there to start 5.3.0 release. Given that we have had
> recent
> > > HBase releases on 2.5 and 2.6 release lines, would someone like to
> > > volunteer to upgrade the versions in Phoenix master branch?
> > >
> > > We can also use 2.6 profile by default.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:49 PM Istvan Toth
> <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll start the thread, Viraj.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:21 AM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think we can remove hbase 2.4 profile and compat module for 5.3.0
> > > > > release.
> > > > > Any volunteers to start separate thread to get consensus and work
> on
> > > > > removing the profile?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:11 PM Viraj Jasani <vj...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop support
> for
> > > it
> > > > in
> > > > > > 5.3.
> > > > > > Sure, no strong opinion either way. We could also keep it as the
> > last
> > > > > > release, or just remove it now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
> > > pre-patches
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > ready,
> > > > > > > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
> > blocking,
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > as finishing
> > > > > > > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a reasonable point, however I am mostly worried about the
> > > amount
> > > > > of
> > > > > > code changes and the num of features that we have for 5.3.0.
> > > > Backtracking
> > > > > > the change history, keeping track with 5.2 for backward
> > compatibility
> > > > etc
> > > > > > might become painful.
> > > > > > I still think we should wait for both HBase 3.0 support and
> > spotless
> > > > > > format changes for master branch only and not include 5.3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's hear from others also before we make the final decision? :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:37 PM Istvan Toth
> > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> We should also consider HBase 2.x version support for 5.3.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hbase 2.4.x has been EOL for some time, we could drop support
> for
> > it
> > > > in
> > > > > >> 5.3.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:32 AM Istvan Toth <stoty@cloudera.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 is
> > > released
> > > > so
> > > > > >> far,
> > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I agree, but both the Spotless reformat and the HBase 3.0
> > > > pre-patches
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> > ready,
> > > > > >> > and could be merged within a week, so I don't see this as
> > > blocking,
> > > > > >> rather
> > > > > >> > as finishing
> > > > > >> > projects that have been languishing for 6+ months.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with HBase
> > > 3.0.0
> > > > > >> >> release
> > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed for
> > > HBase
> > > > 2
> > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I'm neutral on what we call the next release. 6.0.0 may be
> > better
> > > > for
> > > > > >> > marketing.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The important difference between the HBase 1->2 and 2->3
> > > transition
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > that HBase 3 only breaks
> > > > > >> > API compatibility WRT protobuf 2.5.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > While it was not feasible to support HBase 1.x and 2.x from
> the
> > > same
> > > > > >> > Phoenix branch,
> > > > > >> > it is perfectly feasible (if a bit awkward) to support HBase
> 2.x
> > > and
> > > > > 3.x
> > > > > >> > from the same branch,
> > > > > >> > in fact my WIP branch does just that.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Because of this, we can avoid having to maintain separate
> > branches
> > > > for
> > > > > >> > HBase 2.x and 3.x, and treat 3.0
> > > > > >> > just as we do treat a new 2.x release, adding support for it
> > > without
> > > > > >> > breaking the existing 2.x releases.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The current patches are fully compatible with HBase 2.x, they
> > are
> > > > just
> > > > > >> > replacing HBase 1.x APIs
> > > > > >> > that have slipped by the previous API migration attempts.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > For now,
> > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be
> really
> > > > > helpful
> > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish we
> > could
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> done
> > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it at
> > least.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Backports are also my main concern.
> > > > > >> > Actually, that's why I'm pushing for the spotless reformat
> now.
> > > > > >> > If we do it now, then master and 5.3 won't differ, and we can
> > > follow
> > > > > up
> > > > > >> > with the same reformat for 5.2 and even 5.1.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I'm aware that this will be an issue when backporting to
> > > > > >> > private/downstream branches, but
> > > > > >> > that will be true whenever we do the reformat, and we need to
> > rip
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > band-aid off at some point.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The same is true for the pre HBase 3.0 patches, if we merge
> them
> > > > now,
> > > > > >> then
> > > > > >> > at least this will be both in
> > > > > >> > master and 5.3, and is one less thing to get in the way when
> > > > > >> backporting.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Istvan
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM Viraj Jasani <
> > vjasani@apache.org>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the attention, Istvan!
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Given that HBase 3.0.0 is not released yet, only beta-1 is
> > > released
> > > > > so
> > > > > >> >> far,
> > > > > >> >> I believe we should not block Phoenix 5.3.0 for this.
> > > > > >> >> Even if HBase 3.0.0 gets released soon, I still believe it
> > makes
> > > > more
> > > > > >> >> sense
> > > > > >> >> to have the above PRs merged after cutting 5.3 branch.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> A couple of proposals:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> - Once the 5.3 branch is created from master, we should
> also
> > > > > create
> > > > > >> >> branch-5 or 5.x as the top level release branch for 5.x
> > > > releases.
> > > > > >> >> - master branch should start with the 6.0.0 dev version.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Ideally, we would like Phoenix 6.0.0 major release with HBase
> > > 3.0.0
> > > > > >> >> release
> > > > > >> >> rather than Phoenix 5.4.0. This is what we have followed for
> > > HBase
> > > > 2
> > > > > >> >> release as well. WDYT?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless reformat.
> > > > > >> >> I think we should do that before branching, otherwise it's
> > just a
> > > > lot
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> >> extra work to do that twice.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> The spotless work also would benefit well for 6.0.0 release?
> > For
> > > > now,
> > > > > >> >> keeping track of dev changes among 5.x branches would be
> really
> > > > > helpful
> > > > > >> >> because we have tons of features for 5.3 release, I wish we
> > could
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> done
> > > > > >> >> 6.0.0 right away but let's wait for HBase 3.0.0 for it at
> > least.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I am planning to cut 5.3 branch soon after PHOENIX-7587
> > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7587> and
> > > > > PHOENIX-7573
> > > > > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7573> are
> > merged,
> > > > > >> >> hopefully
> > > > > >> >> within a week.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:01 AM Istvan Toth
> > > > > <stoty@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > The big feature I'm tracking is HBase 3.0 support.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > I'm fine with releasing 5.3.0 before HBase 3.0 is out, but
> > then
> > > > we
> > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > >> >> > be prepared to either add HBase 3 support in a
> > > > > >> >> > patch release, or release 5.4.0 relatively quickly after
> 3.0.
> > > > > >> >> > (Summer/Autumn-ish)
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > There are still three HBase 3.0 preparation patches by me
> and
> > > > > Villo,
> > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > >> >> > IMO should be in 5.3.0, otherwise backports will
> > > > > >> >> > be harder than they should be. These have been waiting for
> > > review
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > >> >> > months, If I can't find anyone to review them,
> > > > > >> >> > then I will self-review, as technically their current
> > iteration
> > > > was
> > > > > >> >> already
> > > > > >> >> > rebased/re-worked by Villo.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2035
> > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2036
> > > > > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/2038
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > The other major outstanding issue is the spotless reformat.
> > > > > >> >> > I think we should do that before branching, otherwise it's
> > > just a
> > > > > >> lot of
> > > > > >> >> > extra work to do that twice.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > (The spotless reformat, and the big outstanding HBase 3.0
> > > > > preparation
> > > > > >> >> > patches are another problem, as
> > > > > >> >> > it would be a lot of work to rebase them after the
> reformat)
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Istvan
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:06 AM Viraj Jasani <
> > > vjasani@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > Hi,
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > I am looking forward to creating the 5.3 branch from the
> > > master
> > > > > >> branch
> > > > > >> >> > > sometime next week.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > We have many large changes in the master branch. While
> > > majority
> > > > > >> >> features
> > > > > >> >> > > are hidden behind flags, it is important to ensure we
> have
> > a
> > > > > smooth
> > > > > >> >> > > release.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Please discuss here if there are any big changes you are
> > > > planning
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > include with the 5.3.0 release.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > --
> > > > > >> >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > > >> >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > > >> >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > > >> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera
> >
> > > > > [image:
> > > > > >> >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> > > > [image:
> > > > > >> >> Cloudera
> > > > > >> >> > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> > > > > >> >> > ------------------------------
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > > >> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > > >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > > >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> > > [image:
> > > > > >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> > [image:
> > > > > >> > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <
> > https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > > >> > ------------------------------
> > > > > >> > ------------------------------
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > > >> *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera>
> > [image:
> > > > > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera>
> [image:
> > > > > >> Cloudera
> > > > > >> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------
> > > > > >> ------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > > > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> > > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> > > Cloudera
> > > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
> > *Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image:
> Cloudera
> > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
> > ------------------------------
> > ------------------------------
> >
>
--
*István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer
*Email*: stoty@cloudera.com
cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
[image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
[image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
------------------------------
------------------------------