I want to specifically highlight and +1 a point that Ryan brought up:
A commitment binds us to do this and make a reasonable attempt at finishing on time. If we choose not to commit, or if we choose to commit and don’t make a reasonable attempt, then we need to ask, “what happened?” Is Spark the right place for this work? What I don’t want is to work on it for 3-4 more months, miss the release, and then not have anyone take that problem seriously because we never said it was important. If we try and fail, then we need to fix what went wrong. This removes the option to pretend it wasn’t a goal in the first place. That’s why I think it is important that we make a statement that we, the community, intend to do it. This is the crux of the matter we want to tackle here. Whether or not we block the release is a decision we can make when we are closer to the release date. But the fact of the matter is that Data Source V2’s new APIs have not been given the prioritization and urgency that they deserve. This vote is binding us to consider Data Source V2 so important that it needs to be prioritized far more highly than it is right now, to the point where we would at least consider delaying the release if it meant we could finish the work. I also don’t quite follow the reason why we shouldn’t consider features to be as important to target as API breaks in major versions. When major versions of any software product are introduced, they certainly include API breaks as necessary, but they also add new features that give users incentive to upgrade in the first place. If all we do is introduce API breaks but no new features or critical bug fixes (and critical bug fixes are often severe enough that they’re backported to earlier branches anyways), what appeal is there for users to upgrade to that latest version? -Matt Cheah On 2/28/19, 1:37 PM, "Mridul Muralidharan" <mri...@gmail.com> wrote: I am -1 on this vote for pretty much all the reasons that Mark mentioned. A major version change gives us an opportunity to remove deprecated interfaces, stabilize experimental/developer api, drop support for outdated functionality/platforms and evolve the project with a vision for foreseeable future. IMO the primary focus should be on interface evolution, stability and lowering tech debt which might result in breaking changes. Which is not to say DSv2 should not be part of 3.0 Along with a lot of other exciting features also being added, it can be one more important enhancement. But I am not for delaying the release simply to accommodate a specific feature. Features can be added in subsequent as well - I am yet to hear of a good reason why it must be make it into 3.0 to need a VOTE thread. Regards, Mridul On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:44 AM Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote: > > I agree that adding new features in a major release is not forbidden, but that is just not the primary goal of a major release. If we reach the point where we are happy with the new public API before some new features are in a satisfactory state to be merged, then I don't want there to be a prior presumption that we cannot complete the primary goal of the major release. If at that point you want to argue that it is worth waiting for some new feature, then that would be fine and may have sufficient merits to warrant some delay. > > Regardless of whether significant new public API comes into a major release or a feature release, it should come in with an experimental annotation so that we can make changes without requiring a new major release. > > If you want to argue that some new features that are currently targeting 3.0.0 are significant enough that one or more of them should justify an accelerated 3.1.0 release schedule if it is not ready in time for the 3.0.0 release, then I can much more easily get behind that kind of commitment; but I remain opposed to the notion of promoting any new features to the status of blockers of 3.0.0 at this time. > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: >> >> Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting things done. >> >> This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community to commit to getting it to a functional state. >> >> It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but remember that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated APIs. It does not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release and aren't considering other goals. >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote: >>> >>> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not proper project management, IMO. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones, etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mch...@palantir.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those six points? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID> >>>>>> Reply-To: "rb...@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com> >>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM >>>>>> To: Spark Dev List <dev@spark.apache.org> >>>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a functional state for Spark 3.0. >>>>>> >>>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick summary about what this commitment means: >>>>>> >>>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the Spark 3.0 release >>>>>> >>>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable steps to make it happen >>>>>> >>>>>> · We will not delay the release without a community discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2: >>>>>> >>>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs >>>>>> >>>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote) >>>>>> >>>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls SessionCatalog to load v2 tables >>>>>> >>>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog >>>>>> >>>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes >>>>>> >>>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g., INSERT INTO support) >>>>>> >>>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to this goal. >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0 >>>>>> [ ] +0: . . . >>>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>>> >>>>>> Software Engineer >>>>>> >>>>>> Netflix >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ryan Blue >>>> Software Engineer >>>> Netflix >> >> >> >> -- >> Ryan Blue >> Software Engineer >> Netflix
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
