-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
ORC-FORMAT-29: Upgrade protoc and protobuf-java to 3.25.8
#28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| <groupId>com.google.protobuf</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>protobuf-java</artifactId> | ||
| <version>3.25.5</version> | ||
| <version>3.25.8</version> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks okay.
| <maven.compiler.useIncrementalCompilation>false</maven.compiler.useIncrementalCompilation> | ||
| <maven.version>3.9.6</maven.version> | ||
| <protoc.version>3.17.3</protoc.version> | ||
| <protoc.version>3.25.8</protoc.version> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did you check if this is compatible or not, @cxzl25 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the record, this is 25.8 which means 4.25.8.
libprotoc 25.8
|
I found a very strange problem Rebuild Jar |
|
Thank you, @cxzl25 . I confirmed the situation of |
|
I verified this PR. v1.0.0 v1.1.0 main branch This PR |
|
The changes look like the following. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems that we overlooked this mismatch before because @ekpdt 's suggestion.
protoc and protobuf-java to 3.25.8
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1, LGTM. Thank you, @cxzl25 .
|
This is backported to branch-1.1 too. |
|
Thanks @dongjoon-hyun |
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to upgrade ORC format to 1.1.1. ### Why are the changes needed? This will bring the latest bug fixes. https://github.com/apache/orc-format/milestone/4?closed=1 - apache/orc-format#28 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the CIs. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #52069 from williamhyun/orc-format-1.1.1. Authored-by: William Hyun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
This PR aims to upgrade ORC format to 1.1.1. This will bring the latest bug fixes. https://github.com/apache/orc-format/milestone/4?closed=1 - apache/orc-format#28 No. Pass the CIs. No. Closes #52069 from williamhyun/orc-format-1.1.1. Authored-by: William Hyun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit d2e550f) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
This PR aims to upgrade ORC format to 1.1.1. This will bring the latest bug fixes. https://github.com/apache/orc-format/milestone/4?closed=1 - apache/orc-format#28 No. Pass the CIs. No. Closes apache#52069 from williamhyun/orc-format-1.1.1. Authored-by: William Hyun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 8b50e72) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>


What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR aims to fix the mismatch between protoc and protobuf in orc-format module.
Why are the changes needed?
Using ORC 2.1.3,
protobuf.GeneratedMessagewill output some warning information.apache/orc#2305
How was this patch tested?
local test
After regenerating orc-format, no warning.
This closes #29