Thank you. It's published to Apache ORC website. :)

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 1:44 AM Quanlong Huang <huangquanl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for the explanation! It makes sense to me. Please count my +1.
>
> BTW, I just create a PR to mention Impala in the adopters page:
> https://github.com/apache/orc/pull/1106
>
> Thanks,
> Quanlong
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 8:15 AM Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your feedback, Quanlong! :)
> >
> >     > However, 4 months seems like a pretty long testing time.
> >
> > Yes, you may feel that way. It depends on the project. :)
> >
> > When I started Apache ORC 1.7 preparation, I cut `branch-1.7` on June
> 27th,
> > 2021. Preparing Apache ORC 1.7.0 took almost 3 months and it was released
> > on September 15th, 2021.
> >
> >     https://lists.apache.org/thread/5rxmqb4g0rlt0yj2kx9tx6q8z19bozr3
> >     (FYI: Apache ORC branches)
> >
> > At this time, the test scope of Apache ORC 1.8.0 has been increased
> because
> > we added PyArrow/Dask support officially (although it's mostly dependent
> on
> > the Apache Arrow layer.)
> >
> >     > Do we have any plans for the tests?
> >     > Impala currently uses a snapshot version of ORC.
> >
> > At every release, Apache ORC community is trying to revisit and help most
> > registered downstreams. As you know, it is not easy. As of today, some
> > projects are behind and some projects like Trino are not tested by us at
> > all.
> >
> >     https://orc.apache.org/docs/adopters.html
> >
> > If you add Impala to this page and help with the verification, it would
> be
> > great at this time.
> >
> > Lastly, if you have any new feature, you can still backport it. Since
> > the Apache ORC PMC won't block you, don't worry about that. :)
> >
> > Dongjoon.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 1:34 AM Quanlong Huang <huangquanl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for the feature freeze plan.
> > >
> > > However, 4 months seems like a pretty long testing time. Do we have
> > > any plans for the tests? Impala currently uses a snapshot version of
> > > ORC. But it can only cover the C++ client part. I'm not sure if there
> > > are any other projects using snapshot versions of ORC. So they can
> > > also improve our test coverage.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Quanlong
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 3:49 AM Dongjoon Hyun <dongj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, William
> > > >
> > > > Dongjoon.
> > > >
> > > > On 2022/04/29 22:56:15 "William H." wrote:
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > It sounds good to me!
> > > > >
> > > > > Bests,
> > > > > William
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:10 PM Dongjoon Hyun <
> dongjoon.h...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, All.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apache ORC 1.8 is planned on September 15th and the milestone is
> > > here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     https://github.com/apache/orc/milestone/2 (3 Open, 105
> Closed)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To give sufficient testing time (4 months), I'd like to propose
> to
> > > start a
> > > > > > soft feature freeze by creating `branch-1.8`.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After cutting branches,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - `main` branch will target Apache ORC 1.9.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - All new commits on the `main` branch are supposed to be
> shipped at
> > > Apache
> > > > > > ORC 1.9.0 by default.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - The ORC committers still can do manual backporting if needed
> > > (because
> > > > > > this is a soft-cut)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think about the above plan?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Dongjoon.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>

Reply via email to