Thanks Sam. Was there also agreement to deprecate Spark 3.0 support and go
with supporting the latest 2 versions of Spark 3?


On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:36 AM Sam Redai <s...@tabular.io> wrote:

> If I remember correctly, we landed on option 1, creating a v3.1 without
> the extra reflection logic and then just deprecating 3.0 when the time
> comes. If everyone agrees with that I can amend the notes to describe that
> more explicitly.
>
> -Sam
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:30 AM Wing Yew Poon <wyp...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Adding v3.2 to Spark Build Refactoring
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    Russell and Anton will coordinate on dropping in a Spark 3.2 module
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    We currently have 3.1 in the `spark3` module. We’ll move that out to
>>>    its own module and mirror what we do with the 3.2 module. (This will 
>>> enable
>>>    cleaning up some mixed 3.0/3.1 code)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>> I'm sorry I missed the last sync and only have these meeting minutes to
>> go by.
>> A Spark 3.2 module has now been added. Is the plan still to add a Spark
>> 3.1 module. Will we have v3.0, v3.1 and v3.2 subdirectories under spark/ ?
>> I think when we first started discussing the issue for Spark 3 support
>> and how to organize the code, the proposal was to support two versions?
>> IMO, for maintainability, we should only support two versions of Spark 3.
>> However, in this transition period, I can see two approaches:
>> 1. Create a v3.1 subdirectory, remove the reflection workarounds for its
>> code, add explicit 3.1-specific modules, and build and test against 3.1. We
>> then have 3 Spark 3 versions. At the next release, deprecate Spark 3.0
>> support and remove the v3.0 directory and its modules.
>> 2. Support Spark 3.1 and 3.0 from the common 3.0-based code. At the next
>> release, deprecate Spark 3.0 support, rename v3.0 to v3.1, and update its
>> code to remove the reflection workarounds.
>> As I said, I missed the meeting. Perhaps 1 is the plan that was decided?
>> (If it is, I'm willing to take on the work. I just need to know the plan.)
>> Thanks,
>> Wing Yew
>>
>>
>>

Reply via email to