Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've discussed a few things.
I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make it stable: - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but leave the option definition for future additions) - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no backwards-incompatible changes) The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because... On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote: >> >> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as other >> > standards in Arrow >> > >> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData) I >> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall >> > spec. >> > >> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places (like >> > extension APIs) that are likely to change >> > >> > Andrew >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk >> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything >> > > currently in the spec. >> > > >> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote: >> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the >> > > discussion. >> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show >> > up >> > > in >> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused >> > about >> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current >> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol >> extensions >> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating >> phase? >> > > > >> > > > Laurent >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield < >> emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are >> still >> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward? >> > > >> >> > > >> Thanks, >> > > >> Micah >> > > >> >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything >> > else >> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote: >> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked >> > > >> experimental >> > > >> > as >> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon >> > > <laur...@dremio.com.invalid >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we >> > consider >> > > it >> > > >> > >> stable >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding) >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> Laurent >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol >> > > >> <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong >> > > >> > >> > <james.du...@improving.com.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> >> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <lidav...@apache.org> >> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM >> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <dev@arrow.apache.org> >> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the >> > beginning. >> > > >> Given >> > > >> > >> that >> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should >> we >> > > >> remove >> > > >> > >> this >> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes >> > > >> anymore. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR: >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040 >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > -David >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
