The vote passes with 5 binding, 2 non-binding +1 votes. I'll merge Laurent's PR and then file/start on the rest of the followups.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023, at 04:00, vin jake wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> In <5e1c3154-a9f1-499d-be39-82685fefd...@app.fastmail.com> >> "[VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental" on Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:42:09 -0500, >> "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 >> >>> > > >> > >> > > >> >>> > > >> > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >>
