Would it be possible to change the thread's subject line to "[VOTE]" so it is more visible that we are proposing a change? I worry that this will be buried at the bottom of something that says "[DISCUSS]"
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:43 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> >
