Yes. We should create a SPIP for each major breaking change. Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> 于2018年9月28日周五 下午11:05写道：
> i think we should create spips for some of them, since they are pretty > large ... i can create some tickets to start with > > -- > excuse the brevity and lower case due to wrist injury > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:01 PM Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Based on the above discussions, we have a "rough consensus" that the next >> release will be 3.0. Now, we can start working on the API breaking changes >> (e.g., the ones mentioned in the original email from Reynold). >> >> Cheers, >> >> Xiao >> >> Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> 于2018年9月6日周四 下午2:21写道： >> >>> Yes, you can start with Unstable and move to Evolving and Stable when >>> needed. We’ve definitely had experimental features that changed across >>> maintenance releases when they were well-isolated. If your change risks >>> breaking stuff in stable components of Spark though, then it probably won’t >>> be suitable for that. >>> >>> > On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I meant flexibility beyond the point releases. I think what Reynold >>> was suggesting was getting v2 code out more often than the point releases >>> every 6 months. An Evolving API can change in point releases, but maybe we >>> should move v2 to Unstable so it can change more often? I don't really see >>> another way to get changes out more often. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Yes, that is why we have these annotations in the code and the >>> corresponding labels appearing in the API documentation: >>> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/common/tags/src/main/java/org/apache/spark/annotation/InterfaceStability.java >>> > >>> > As long as it is properly annotated, we can change or even eliminate >>> an API method before the next major release. And frankly, we shouldn't be >>> contemplating bringing in the DS v2 API (and, I'd argue, any new API) >>> without such an annotation. There is just too much risk of not getting >>> everything right before we see the results of the new API being more widely >>> used, and too much cost in maintaining until the next major release >>> something that we come to regret for us to create new API in a fully frozen >>> state. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:49 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> > It would be great to get more features out incrementally. For >>> experimental features, do we have more relaxed constraints? >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:47 AM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> >>> wrote: >>> > +1 on 3.0 >>> > >>> > Dsv2 stable can still evolve in across major releases. DataFrame, >>> Dataset, dsv1 and a lot of other major features all were developed >>> throughout the 1.x and 2.x lines. >>> > >>> > I do want to explore ways for us to get dsv2 incremental changes out >>> there more frequently, to get feedback. Maybe that means we apply additive >>> changes to 2.4.x; maybe that means making another 2.5 release sooner. I >>> will start a separate thread about it. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:31 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I think this doesn't necessarily mean 3.0 is coming soon (thoughts on >>> timing? 6 months?) but simply next. Do you mean you'd prefer that change to >>> happen before 3.x? if it's a significant change, seems reasonable for a >>> major version bump rather than minor. Is the concern that tying it to 3.0 >>> means you have to take a major version update to get it? >>> > >>> > I generally support moving on to 3.x so we can also jettison a lot of >>> older dependencies, code, fix some long standing issues, etc. >>> > >>> > (BTW Scala 2.12 support, mentioned in the OP, will go in for 2.4) >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:10 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> > My concern is that the v2 data source API is still evolving and not >>> very close to stable. I had hoped to have stabilized the API and behaviors >>> for a 3.0 release. But we could also wait on that for a 4.0 release, >>> depending on when we think that will be. >>> > >>> > Unless there is a pressing need to move to 3.0 for some other area, I >>> think it would be better for the v2 sources to have a 2.5 release. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:59 AM Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Yesterday, the 2.4 branch was created. Based on the above discussion, >>> I think we can bump the master branch to 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT. Any concern? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Ryan Blue >>> > Software Engineer >>> > Netflix >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Ryan Blue >>> > Software Engineer >>> > Netflix >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >>> >>>
