I think that It would be great though if we have a clear blocker that makes the release pointless if we want to drop this RC practically given that we will schedule 3.1.1 faster - non-regression bug fixes will be delivered to end users relatively fast. That would make it clear which option we should take. I personally don't mind dropping 3.1.0 as well; we'll have to wait for the INFRA team's response anyway.
2021년 1월 7일 (목) 오후 1:03, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > I don't agree the first two are blockers for reasons I gave earlier. > Those two do look like important issues - are they regressions from 3.0.1? > I do agree we'd probably cut a new RC for those in any event, so agree > with the plan to drop 3.1.0 (if the Maven release can't be overwritten) > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:38 PM Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Before we discover the pre-uploaded artifacts, both Jungtaek and Hyukjin >> already made two blockers shared here. >> IIUC, it meant implicitly RC1 failure at that time. >> >> In addition to that, there are two correctness issues. So, I made up my >> mind to cast -1 for this RC1 before joining this thread. >> >> SPARK-34011 ALTER TABLE .. RENAME TO PARTITION doesn't refresh cache >> (committed after tagging) >> SPARK-34027 ALTER TABLE .. RECOVER PARTITIONS doesn't refresh cache (PR >> is under review) >> >> Although the above issues are not regression, those are enough for me to >> give -1 for 3.1.0 RC1. >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:52 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I just don't see a reason to believe there's a rush? just test it as >>> normal? I did, you can too, etc. >>> Or specifically what blocks the current RC? >>> >>
