Right, I was kind of assuming that noone was interested in maintaining it, but if anyone reading this thread wants to volunteer, they should pipe up now.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Lars Volker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Even if people were using it, would that affect our decision if there's > > noone to maintain it? I don't think we were ambiguous about whether > writing > > those formats was supported or not. > > > > I agree, if we cannot maintain it, we should remove it. I was thinking of > the other option you outlined in the original message: > > It seems like we should get it out of this in-between state - either delete > > the code or get it to the point where it's supported and tested. If we > > delete it, it's always possible for someone to resurrect it later. > > > Cheers, Lars > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Edward, > > > I was talking about write support, specifically. Reading those > formats > > > is supported without any configuration changes. > > > > > > - Tim > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Edward Capriolo < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I was going to say. Not a current user ATM, but there are defiantly > > people > > >> with text+gzip SequenceFile(Text). It is nice to be able to work with > > >> those, I was also at a shop that went hard for AVRO + Impala but since > > >> switched off. > > >> > > >> I also do not understand what is meant by "behind a query option" > since > > >> the > > >> version of Impala I had (CDH 5+6) would process all the above formats. > > >> > > >> Edward > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Lars Volker <[email protected] > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I'm in favor of removing unsupported code, especially when doing so > > >> makes > > >> > development of the rest of the codebase easier and saves us cycles > for > > >> > maintaining it. On the other hand it would suck if users had come to > > >> rely > > >> > on it and we break it, even though we recommend against it. > > >> > > > >> > We could make a reasonable effort to discover any users of the > > feature, > > >> > e.g. by asking on user@ and by folks on this list checking other > > >> > communication channels they might have access to. > > >> > > > >> > Cheers, Lars > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:26 AM Tim Armstrong > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I don't think we need to bump a major version to remove something > > >> that we > > >> > > never claimed to support though. The docs are pretty clear: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > https://impala.apache.org/docs/build/html/topics/impala_ > > >> > allow_unsupported_formats.html > > >> > > > > >> > > "An obsolete query option from early work on support for file > > >> formats. Do > > >> > > not use. Might be removed in the future." > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Jim Apple > > >> <[email protected] > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > As for the time zone case, I’d like to be careful about > > versioning. > > >> If > > >> > we > > >> > > > remove Avro, that seems like a breaking changedeserving of a > major > > >> > > version > > >> > > > bump. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > It might be worth taking a survey wider than dev@. User@ or the > > >> > > customers > > >> > > > of Impala packagers might be good places to start. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:10 PM Tim Armstrong > > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > For a few years now we've had write support for Sequence, Avro > > and > > >> > > > > compressed text hidden behind a query option. We haven't > really > > >> made > > >> > > any > > >> > > > > progress on turning it into a supported feature, so I'm > > wondering > > >> if > > >> > we > > >> > > > > should remove the code and save some overhead of building, > > testing > > >> > and > > >> > > > code > > >> > > > > maintenance. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I know I've found it useful once or twice to generate test > data > > >> but I > > >> > > > don't > > >> > > > > think this is enough to justify maintaining it. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > It seems like we should get it out of this in-between state - > > >> either > > >> > > > delete > > >> > > > > the code or get it to the point where it's supported and > tested. > > >> If > > >> > we > > >> > > > > delete it, it's always possible for someone to resurrect it > > later. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > What do people think? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > - Tim > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
