Yes, you can start with Unstable and move to Evolving and Stable when needed. We’ve definitely had experimental features that changed across maintenance releases when they were well-isolated. If your change risks breaking stuff in stable components of Spark though, then it probably won’t be suitable for that.
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote: > > I meant flexibility beyond the point releases. I think what Reynold was > suggesting was getting v2 code out more often than the point releases every 6 > months. An Evolving API can change in point releases, but maybe we should > move v2 to Unstable so it can change more often? I don't really see another > way to get changes out more often. > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote: > Yes, that is why we have these annotations in the code and the corresponding > labels appearing in the API documentation: > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/common/tags/src/main/java/org/apache/spark/annotation/InterfaceStability.java > > As long as it is properly annotated, we can change or even eliminate an API > method before the next major release. And frankly, we shouldn't be > contemplating bringing in the DS v2 API (and, I'd argue, any new API) without > such an annotation. There is just too much risk of not getting everything > right before we see the results of the new API being more widely used, and > too much cost in maintaining until the next major release something that we > come to regret for us to create new API in a fully frozen state. > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:49 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> wrote: > It would be great to get more features out incrementally. For experimental > features, do we have more relaxed constraints? > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:47 AM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > +1 on 3.0 > > Dsv2 stable can still evolve in across major releases. DataFrame, Dataset, > dsv1 and a lot of other major features all were developed throughout the 1.x > and 2.x lines. > > I do want to explore ways for us to get dsv2 incremental changes out there > more frequently, to get feedback. Maybe that means we apply additive changes > to 2.4.x; maybe that means making another 2.5 release sooner. I will start a > separate thread about it. > > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:31 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this doesn't necessarily mean 3.0 is coming soon (thoughts on timing? > 6 months?) but simply next. Do you mean you'd prefer that change to happen > before 3.x? if it's a significant change, seems reasonable for a major > version bump rather than minor. Is the concern that tying it to 3.0 means you > have to take a major version update to get it? > > I generally support moving on to 3.x so we can also jettison a lot of older > dependencies, code, fix some long standing issues, etc. > > (BTW Scala 2.12 support, mentioned in the OP, will go in for 2.4) > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:10 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> wrote: > My concern is that the v2 data source API is still evolving and not very > close to stable. I had hoped to have stabilized the API and behaviors for a > 3.0 release. But we could also wait on that for a 4.0 release, depending on > when we think that will be. > > Unless there is a pressing need to move to 3.0 for some other area, I think > it would be better for the v2 sources to have a 2.5 release. > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:59 AM Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yesterday, the 2.4 branch was created. Based on the above discussion, I think > we can bump the master branch to 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT. Any concern? > > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Netflix > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Netflix --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
