Re: [VOTE] Release Spark 3.3.2 (RC1)

Seems I've not added my +1 yet. +1 On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:02 AM Holden Karau wrote: > > That’s legit, if the patch author isn’t comfortable with a backport then > let’s leave it be  > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:59 AM Dongjoon Hyun wrote: >> >> Hi, All. >> >> As the author of that

Re: [DISCUSS] Make release cadence predictable

+1 for Hyukjin and Sean's opinion. Thank you for initiating this discussion. If we have a fixed-predefined regular 6-month, I believe we can persuade the incomplete features to wait for next releases more easily. In addition, I want to add the first RC1 date requirement because RC1 always did a

Re: [VOTE][SPIP] Lazy Materialization for Parquet Read Performance Improvement

+1 DB Tsai | https://www.dbtsai.com/ | PGP 42E5B25A8F7A82C1 > On Feb 14, 2023, at 8:29 AM, Guo Weijie wrote: > > +1 > > Yuming Wang mailto:wgy...@gmail.com>> 于2023年2月14日周二 > 15:58写道： >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:27 AM Prem Sahoo > > wrote: >>> +1

Re: [VOTE][SPIP] Lazy Materialization for Parquet Read Performance Improvement

+1 Yuming Wang 于2023年2月14日周二 15:58写道： > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:27 AM Prem Sahoo wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 8:13 PM L. C. Hsieh wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 3:49 PM Mich Talebzadeh < >>> mich.talebza...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> +1 for me

Re: [DISCUSS] Make release cadence predictable

I'm fine with shifting to a stricter cadence-based schedule. Sometimes, it'll mean some significant change misses a release rather than delays it. If people are OK with that discipline, sure. A hard 6-month cycle would mean the minor releases are more frequent and have less change in them. That's