+1, thanks for making it clear that this SPIP focuses on high-level direction!
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 9:35 AM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > Thanks Ryan. +1. > > > > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 5:33 PM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: > >> Actually, I went ahead and removed the confusing section. There is no >> public API in the doc now, so that it is clear that it isn't a relevant >> part of this vote. >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:58 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: >> >> I moved the public API to the "Implementation Sketch" section. That API >> is not an important part of this, as that section notes. >> >> I completely agree that SPIPs should be high-level and that the >> specifics, like method names, are not hard requirements. The proposal was >> more of a sketch, but I was asked by Xiao in the DSv2 sync to make sure the >> list of methods was complete. I think as long as we have agreement that the >> intent is not to make the exact names binding, we should be okay. >> >> I can remove the user-facing API sketch, but I'd prefer to leave it in >> the sketch section so we have it documented somewhere. >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:51 PM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: >> >> Ryan - can you take the public user facing API part out of that SPIP? >> >> In general it'd be better to have the SPIPs be higher level, and put the >> detailed APIs in a separate doc. Alternatively, put them in the SPIP but >> explicitly vote on the high level stuff and not the detailed APIs. >> >> I don't want to get to a situation in which two months later the >> identical APIs were committed with the justification that they were voted >> on a while ago. In this case, it's even more serious because while I think >> we all have consensus on the higher level internal API, not much discussion >> has happened with the user-facing API and we should just leave that out >> explicitly. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 1:00 PM, Anthony Young-Garner < >> anthony.young-gar...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:54 PM John Zhuge <jzh...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:11 AM Matt Cheah <mch...@palantir.com> wrote: >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> >> *From: *Jamison Bennett <jamison.benn...@cloudera.com.INVALID> >> *Date: *Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:28 AM >> *To: *Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com>, Spark Dev List <dev@spark.apache.org >> > >> *Subject: *Re: [VOTE] SPIP: Spark API for Table Metadata >> >> >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> *Jamison Bennett* >> >> Cloudera Software Engineer >> >> jamison.benn...@cloudera.com >> >> 515 Congress Ave, Suite 1212 | Austin, TX | 78701 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:20 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:34 PM Russell Spitzer < >> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 6:28 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> In the last DSv2 sync, the consensus was that the table metadata SPIP was >> ready to bring up for a vote. Now that the multi-catalog identifier SPIP >> vote has passed, I'd like to start one for the table metadata API, >> TableCatalog. >> >> >> >> The proposal is for adding a TableCatalog interface that will be used by >> v2 plans. That interface has methods to load, create, drop, alter, refresh, >> rename, and check existence for tables. It also specifies the set of >> metadata used to configure tables: schema, partitioning, and key-value >> properties. For more information, please read the SPIP proposal doc >> [docs.google.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zLFiA1VuaWeVxeTDXNg8bL6GP3BVoOZBkewFtEnjEoo_edit-23heading-3Dh.m45webtwxf2d&d=DwMFaQ&c=izlc9mHr637UR4lpLEZLFFS3Vn2UXBrZ4tFb6oOnmz8&r=hzwIMNQ9E99EMYGuqHI0kXhVbvX3nU3OSDadUnJxjAs&m=JmgvL6ffL9tyoLWWZtWujDe9FNiSguMApA53YK9NTP8&s=eSx5nMZvdB5hS9VepuvvFZFXjTCrdde-AdzkHC5jRYk&e=> >> . >> >> >> >> Please vote in the next 3 days. >> >> >> >> [ ] +1: Accept the proposal as an official SPIP >> >> [ ] +0 >> >> [ ] -1: I don't think this is a good idea because ... >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ryan Blue >> >> Software Engineer >> >> Netflix >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ryan Blue >> >> Software Engineer >> >> Netflix >> >> >> >> -- >> John Zhuge >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ryan Blue >> Software Engineer >> Netflix >> >> >> >> -- >> Ryan Blue >> Software Engineer >> Netflix >> > >
