[GitHub] [spark] rdblue commented on pull request #28523: [SPARK-31706][SQL] add back the support of streaming update mode
rdblue commented on pull request #28523: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/28523#issuecomment-635683658 I agree that if it is a misunderstanding, then a veto isn't binding. And the way to handle that situation is to discuss why the justification was based on a misunderstanding and make sure there is agreement. Misunderstanding goes both ways, so I don't think it would be safe to simply ignore someone if you think they missed something. Also, I don't think that "qualified voter" refers only to PMC members. That's not how it has worked in my experience, though this can vary between communities. A qualified voter is normally a committer, but could also be a contributor. Someone who it's a good idea to listen to if they raise a serious concern -- the purpose is to reach consensus by taking the time to discuss the problem. And in this case, I was pointing out that (I thought) this PR went against a previous _community decision_ to not expose this as a public API. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] [spark] rdblue commented on pull request #28523: [SPARK-31706][SQL] add back the support of streaming update mode
rdblue commented on pull request #28523: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/28523#issuecomment-633641667 @cloud-fan, sorry for my confusion here. From the summary, I didn't realize that this actually added back the streaming modes using private interfaces and mistakenly thought you were trying to add back the public interfaces. That's what I intended to -1 and I didn't realize the mistake until you pointed out that the code hadn't changed, even now. I took the early lack of changes as simply a lack of progress, which led to my surprise when this was merged. Next time, let's try to communicate more clearly. Perhaps you didn't realize why I was confused, too, but it would have been helpful to point out that the solution we agreed on was what was already implemented. And it is still necessary to have a veto reversed; there is no timeout and inferring that a veto has been reversed is unreliable compared to asking for clarification. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] [spark] rdblue commented on pull request #28523: [SPARK-31706][SQL] add back the support of streaming update mode
rdblue commented on pull request #28523: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/28523#issuecomment-632185172 This PR wasn't ready to review until late Monday where I am, and was merged less than a day later. I had also assumed that the fix would be in a separate PR, which is why I didn't follow this one too closely. In any case, if you want to merge a PR that has been vetoed, make sure concerns are satisfied. Being "active" is not a requirement and is poorly defined. That's not a valid excuse. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] [spark] rdblue commented on pull request #28523: [SPARK-31706][SQL] add back the support of streaming update mode
rdblue commented on pull request #28523: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/28523#issuecomment-631608137 @cloud-fan, please stop merging pull requests that have a standing [veto](https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html). It is better to ask for a review. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
