Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Jungtaek Lim]

Otherwise we could just set the legacy config as 'true' by default, until
SPARK-31257 (unification of create table syntax) is introduced. That would
be smallest and safest approach - no ambiguity by default, and if anyone is
adventurous or fully understanding the ambiguity they can set it to "false"
and deal with it. WDYT?

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:48 AM Jungtaek Lim 
wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand the direction of resolution. I'm not saying it's
> just a confusion - it's "ambiguous" and "indeterministic".
>
> Two syntaxes were at least distinguished before Spark 3.0 by "USING ...",
> and it's simply broken. I understand we are lack of time and we may need
> some workaround but I'm not sure I agree with leaving it worse than before.
>
> The source code made it clear that the Hive create table syntax is the
> legacy syntax for Hive compatibility, and we recommend users to use native
> create table syntax. What makes us fear to put legacy syntax to be a second
> class of support, even we put legacy config to let end users revert it back?
>
> Single line of code change (excluding tests) would fix everything until we
> reach to unify the two syntax - add a marker to Hive create table syntax.
> That would make the Hive create table syntax to become a second class. Yes
> it requires end users to add a marker if they need to run create table for
> Hive syntax, but wouldn't we want to recommend end users to use native
> create table syntax? Is it a thing we should support natively as well, with
> such ambiguity?
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:49 PM Wenchen Fan  wrote:
>
>> I agree that we can cut the RC anyway even if there are blockers, to move
>> us to a more official "code freeze" status.
>>
>> About the CREATE TABLE unification, it's still WIP and not close-to-merge
>> yet. Can we fix some specific problems like CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE
>> surgically and leave the unification to 3.1 or 3.0.1? Spark has 2 CREATE
>> TABLE syntaxes for a long time and the confusion is already there.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:29 AM Nicholas Chammas <
>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have a dog in this race, but: Would it be OK to ship 3.0 with
>>> some release notes and/or prominent documentation calling out this issue,
>>> and then fixing it in 3.0.1?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:45 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>>> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I'd say SPARK-31257 as open blocker, because the change in upcoming
 Spark 3.0 made the create table be ambiguous, and once it's shipped it will
 be harder to correct again.

 On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 4:53 AM Reynold Xin 
 wrote:

> Let's start cutting RC next week.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM, Sean Owen  wrote:
>
>> I'm also curious - there no open blockers for 3.0 but I know a few
>> are still floating around open to revert changes. What is the status 
>> there?
>> From my field of view I'm not aware of other blocking issues.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:56 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now the end of March is just around the corner. I'm not qualified to
>>> say (and honestly don't know) where we are, but if we were intended to 
>>> be
>>> in blocker mode it doesn't seem to work; lots of developments still 
>>> happen,
>>> and priority/urgency doesn't seem to be applied to the sequence of
>>> reviewing.
>>>
>>> How about listing (or linking to epic, or labelling) JIRA issues/PRs
>>> which are blockers (either from priority or technically) for Spark 3.0
>>> release, and make clear we should try to review these blockers
>>> first? Github PR label may help here to filter out other PRs and
>>> concentrate these things.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Xiao Li 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few
 days. For example,
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085

 +1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail
 the RCs.

 Cheers,

 Xiao


 On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun <
 dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Dongjoon.
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin 
> wrote:
>
>> I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even
>> with blockers.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <
>> dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, All.
>>>
>>> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
>>> I wish you the best health and happiness.
>>>
>>> As we know, we are still working on 

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Jungtaek Lim]

I'm not sure I understand the direction of resolution. I'm not saying it's
just a confusion - it's "ambiguous" and "indeterministic".

Two syntaxes were at least distinguished before Spark 3.0 by "USING ...",
and it's simply broken. I understand we are lack of time and we may need
some workaround but I'm not sure I agree with leaving it worse than before.

The source code made it clear that the Hive create table syntax is the
legacy syntax for Hive compatibility, and we recommend users to use native
create table syntax. What makes us fear to put legacy syntax to be a second
class of support, even we put legacy config to let end users revert it back?

Single line of code change (excluding tests) would fix everything until we
reach to unify the two syntax - add a marker to Hive create table syntax.
That would make the Hive create table syntax to become a second class. Yes
it requires end users to add a marker if they need to run create table for
Hive syntax, but wouldn't we want to recommend end users to use native
create table syntax? Is it a thing we should support natively as well, with
such ambiguity?


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:49 PM Wenchen Fan  wrote:

> I agree that we can cut the RC anyway even if there are blockers, to move
> us to a more official "code freeze" status.
>
> About the CREATE TABLE unification, it's still WIP and not close-to-merge
> yet. Can we fix some specific problems like CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE
> surgically and leave the unification to 3.1 or 3.0.1? Spark has 2 CREATE
> TABLE syntaxes for a long time and the confusion is already there.
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:29 AM Nicholas Chammas <
> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have a dog in this race, but: Would it be OK to ship 3.0 with
>> some release notes and/or prominent documentation calling out this issue,
>> and then fixing it in 3.0.1?
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:45 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say SPARK-31257 as open blocker, because the change in upcoming
>>> Spark 3.0 made the create table be ambiguous, and once it's shipped it will
>>> be harder to correct again.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 4:53 AM Reynold Xin  wrote:
>>>
 Let's start cutting RC next week.


 On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM, Sean Owen  wrote:

> I'm also curious - there no open blockers for 3.0 but I know a few are
> still floating around open to revert changes. What is the status there?
> From my field of view I'm not aware of other blocking issues.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:56 PM Jungtaek Lim <
> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now the end of March is just around the corner. I'm not qualified to
>> say (and honestly don't know) where we are, but if we were intended to be
>> in blocker mode it doesn't seem to work; lots of developments still 
>> happen,
>> and priority/urgency doesn't seem to be applied to the sequence of
>> reviewing.
>>
>> How about listing (or linking to epic, or labelling) JIRA issues/PRs
>> which are blockers (either from priority or technically) for Spark 3.0
>> release, and make clear we should try to review these blockers
>> first? Github PR label may help here to filter out other PRs and
>> concentrate these things.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Xiao Li 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few
>>> days. For example, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085
>>>
>>> +1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail
>>> the RCs.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Xiao
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun <
>>> dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 +1

 Thanks,
 Dongjoon.

 On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin 
 wrote:

> I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even
> with blockers.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <
> dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, All.
>>
>> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
>> I wish you the best health and happiness.
>>
>> As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC
>> stage. It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.
>>
>> https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html
>>
>> If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0`
>> release manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have 
>> only 1
>> week before the end of March.
>>
>> Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and
>> update the website, please?
>>

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Wenchen Fan]

I agree that we can cut the RC anyway even if there are blockers, to move
us to a more official "code freeze" status.

About the CREATE TABLE unification, it's still WIP and not close-to-merge
yet. Can we fix some specific problems like CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE
surgically and leave the unification to 3.1 or 3.0.1? Spark has 2 CREATE
TABLE syntaxes for a long time and the confusion is already there.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:29 AM Nicholas Chammas 
wrote:

> I don't have a dog in this race, but: Would it be OK to ship 3.0 with some
> release notes and/or prominent documentation calling out this issue, and
> then fixing it in 3.0.1?
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:45 PM Jungtaek Lim 
> wrote:
>
>> I'd say SPARK-31257 as open blocker, because the change in upcoming Spark
>> 3.0 made the create table be ambiguous, and once it's shipped it will be
>> harder to correct again.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 4:53 AM Reynold Xin  wrote:
>>
>>> Let's start cutting RC next week.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM, Sean Owen  wrote:
>>>
 I'm also curious - there no open blockers for 3.0 but I know a few are
 still floating around open to revert changes. What is the status there?
 From my field of view I'm not aware of other blocking issues.

 On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:56 PM Jungtaek Lim <
 kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now the end of March is just around the corner. I'm not qualified to
> say (and honestly don't know) where we are, but if we were intended to be
> in blocker mode it doesn't seem to work; lots of developments still 
> happen,
> and priority/urgency doesn't seem to be applied to the sequence of
> reviewing.
>
> How about listing (or linking to epic, or labelling) JIRA issues/PRs
> which are blockers (either from priority or technically) for Spark 3.0
> release, and make clear we should try to review these blockers
> first? Github PR label may help here to filter out other PRs and
> concentrate these things.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Xiao Li  wrote:
>
>> Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few
>> days. For example, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085
>>
>> +1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail
>> the RCs.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Xiao
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun <
>> dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dongjoon.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even
 with blockers.


 On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <
 dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, All.
>
> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
> I wish you the best health and happiness.
>
> As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC
> stage. It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.
>
> https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html
>
> If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0`
> release manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have 
> only 1
> week before the end of March.
>
> Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and
> update the website, please?
>
> Bests
> Dongjoon.
>


>>
>> --
>> 
>>
>
>>>

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Nicholas Chammas]

I don't have a dog in this race, but: Would it be OK to ship 3.0 with some
release notes and/or prominent documentation calling out this issue, and
then fixing it in 3.0.1?

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:45 PM Jungtaek Lim 
wrote:

> I'd say SPARK-31257 as open blocker, because the change in upcoming Spark
> 3.0 made the create table be ambiguous, and once it's shipped it will be
> harder to correct again.
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 4:53 AM Reynold Xin  wrote:
>
>> Let's start cutting RC next week.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM, Sean Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also curious - there no open blockers for 3.0 but I know a few are
>>> still floating around open to revert changes. What is the status there?
>>> From my field of view I'm not aware of other blocking issues.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:56 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>>> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Now the end of March is just around the corner. I'm not qualified to
 say (and honestly don't know) where we are, but if we were intended to be
 in blocker mode it doesn't seem to work; lots of developments still happen,
 and priority/urgency doesn't seem to be applied to the sequence of
 reviewing.

 How about listing (or linking to epic, or labelling) JIRA issues/PRs
 which are blockers (either from priority or technically) for Spark 3.0
 release, and make clear we should try to review these blockers
 first? Github PR label may help here to filter out other PRs and
 concentrate these things.

 Thanks,
 Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)


 On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Xiao Li  wrote:

> Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few
> days. For example, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085
>
> +1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail the
> RCs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Xiao
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun 
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dongjoon.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even
>>> with blockers.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <
>>> dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi, All.

 First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
 I wish you the best health and happiness.

 As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC
 stage. It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.

 https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html

 If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0` release
 manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have only 1 week
 before the end of March.

 Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and update
 the website, please?

 Bests
 Dongjoon.

>>>
>>>
>
> --
> 
>

>>

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Jungtaek Lim]

I'd say SPARK-31257 as open blocker, because the change in upcoming Spark
3.0 made the create table be ambiguous, and once it's shipped it will be
harder to correct again.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 4:53 AM Reynold Xin  wrote:

> Let's start cutting RC next week.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM, Sean Owen  wrote:
>
>> I'm also curious - there no open blockers for 3.0 but I know a few are
>> still floating around open to revert changes. What is the status there?
>> From my field of view I'm not aware of other blocking issues.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:56 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now the end of March is just around the corner. I'm not qualified to say
>>> (and honestly don't know) where we are, but if we were intended to be in
>>> blocker mode it doesn't seem to work; lots of developments still happen,
>>> and priority/urgency doesn't seem to be applied to the sequence of
>>> reviewing.
>>>
>>> How about listing (or linking to epic, or labelling) JIRA issues/PRs
>>> which are blockers (either from priority or technically) for Spark 3.0
>>> release, and make clear we should try to review these blockers
>>> first? Github PR label may help here to filter out other PRs and
>>> concentrate these things.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Xiao Li  wrote:
>>>
 Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few days.
 For example, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085

 +1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail the
 RCs.

 Cheers,

 Xiao


 On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun 
 wrote:

> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Dongjoon.
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin  wrote:
>
>> I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even
>> with blockers.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <
>> dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, All.
>>>
>>> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
>>> I wish you the best health and happiness.
>>>
>>> As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC
>>> stage. It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.
>>>
>>> https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html
>>>
>>> If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0` release
>>> manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have only 1 week
>>> before the end of March.
>>>
>>> Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and update
>>> the website, please?
>>>
>>> Bests
>>> Dongjoon.
>>>
>>
>>

 --
 

>>>
>

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Reynold Xin]

Let's start cutting RC next week.

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM, Sean Owen < sro...@gmail.com > wrote:

> 
> I'm also curious - there no open blockers for 3.0 but I know a few are
> still floating around open to revert changes. What is the status there?
> From my field of view I'm not aware of other blocking issues.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:56 PM Jungtaek Lim < kabhwan. opensource@ gmail.
> com ( kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com ) > wrote:
> 
> 
>> Now the end of March is just around the corner. I'm not qualified to say
>> (and honestly don't know) where we are, but if we were intended to be in
>> blocker mode it doesn't seem to work; lots of developments still happen,
>> and priority/urgency doesn't seem to be applied to the sequence of
>> reviewing.
>> 
>> 
>> How about listing (or linking to epic, or labelling) JIRA issues/PRs which
>> are blockers (either from priority or technically) for Spark 3.0 release,
>> and make clear we should try to review these blockers first? Github PR
>> label may help here to filter out other PRs and concentrate these things.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Xiao Li < lixiao@ databricks. com (
>> lix...@databricks.com ) > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few days.
>>> For example, https:/ / issues. apache. org/ jira/ browse/ SPARK-31085 (
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085 )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail the
>>> RCs. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Xiao
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun < dongjoon. hyun@ gmail. com
>>> ( dongjoon.h...@gmail.com ) > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 +1
 
 
 Thanks,
 Dongjoon.
 
 On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin < rxin@ databricks. com (
 r...@databricks.com ) > wrote:
 
 
> I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even with
> blockers.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun < dongjoon. hyun@ gmail. 
> com
> ( dongjoon.h...@gmail.com ) > wrote:
> 
>> Hi, All.
>> 
>> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
>> I wish you the best health and happiness.
>> 
>> As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC stage.
>> It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.
>> 
>>    https:/ / spark. apache. org/ versioning-policy. html (
>> https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html )
>> 
>> If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0` release
>> manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have only 1 week
>> before the end of March.
>> 
>> 
>> Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and update the
>> website, please?
>> 
>> 
>> Bests
>> Dongjoon.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ( https://databricks.com/sparkaisummit/north-america )
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Sean Owen]

I'm also curious - there no open blockers for 3.0 but I know a few are
still floating around open to revert changes. What is the status there?
>From my field of view I'm not aware of other blocking issues.

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:56 PM Jungtaek Lim 
wrote:

> Now the end of March is just around the corner. I'm not qualified to say
> (and honestly don't know) where we are, but if we were intended to be in
> blocker mode it doesn't seem to work; lots of developments still happen,
> and priority/urgency doesn't seem to be applied to the sequence of
> reviewing.
>
> How about listing (or linking to epic, or labelling) JIRA issues/PRs which
> are blockers (either from priority or technically) for Spark 3.0 release,
> and make clear we should try to review these blockers first? Github PR
> label may help here to filter out other PRs and concentrate these things.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Xiao Li  wrote:
>
>> Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few days.
>> For example, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085
>>
>> +1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail the
>> RCs.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Xiao
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dongjoon.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin  wrote:
>>>
 I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even with
 blockers.


 On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <
 dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, All.
>
> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
> I wish you the best health and happiness.
>
> As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC
> stage. It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.
>
> https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html
>
> If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0` release
> manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have only 1 week
> before the end of March.
>
> Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and update
> the website, please?
>
> Bests
> Dongjoon.
>


>>
>> --
>> 
>>
>

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Jungtaek Lim]

Now the end of March is just around the corner. I'm not qualified to say
(and honestly don't know) where we are, but if we were intended to be in
blocker mode it doesn't seem to work; lots of developments still happen,
and priority/urgency doesn't seem to be applied to the sequence of
reviewing.

How about listing (or linking to epic, or labelling) JIRA issues/PRs which
are blockers (either from priority or technically) for Spark 3.0 release,
and make clear we should try to review these blockers first? Github PR
label may help here to filter out other PRs and concentrate these things.

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)


On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Xiao Li  wrote:

> Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few days.
> For example, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085
>
> +1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail the
> RCs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Xiao
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun 
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dongjoon.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin  wrote:
>>
>>> I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even with
>>> blockers.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun >> > wrote:
>>>
 Hi, All.

 First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
 I wish you the best health and happiness.

 As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC
 stage. It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.

 https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html

 If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0` release
 manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have only 1 week
 before the end of March.

 Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and update the
 website, please?

 Bests
 Dongjoon.

>>>
>>>
>
> --
> 
>

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Xiao Li]

Let us try to finish the remaining major blockers in the next few days. For
example, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31085

+1 to cut the RC even if we still have the blockers that will fail the RCs.

Cheers,

Xiao


On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:56 PM Dongjoon Hyun 
wrote:

> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Dongjoon.
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin  wrote:
>
>> I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even with
>> blockers.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, All.
>>>
>>> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
>>> I wish you the best health and happiness.
>>>
>>> As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC
>>> stage. It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.
>>>
>>> https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html
>>>
>>> If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0` release
>>> manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have only 1 week
>>> before the end of March.
>>>
>>> Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and update the
>>> website, please?
>>>
>>> Bests
>>> Dongjoon.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Dongjoon Hyun]

+1

Thanks,
Dongjoon.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 14:49 Reynold Xin  wrote:

> I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even with
> blockers.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, All.
>>
>> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
>> I wish you the best health and happiness.
>>
>> As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC
>> stage. It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.
>>
>> https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html
>>
>> If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0` release
>> manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have only 1 week
>> before the end of March.
>>
>> Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and update the
>> website, please?
>>
>> Bests
>> Dongjoon.
>>
>
>

Re: Release Manager's official `branch-3.0` Assessment?

[Reynold Xin]

I actually think we should start cutting RCs. We can cut RCs even with blockers.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM, Dongjoon Hyun < dongjoon.h...@gmail.com > 
wrote:

> 
> Hi, All.
> 
> First of all, always "Community Over Code"!
> I wish you the best health and happiness.
> 
> As we know, we are still working on QA period, we didn't reach RC stage.
> It seems that we need to make website up-to-date once more.
> 
>    https:/ / spark. apache. org/ versioning-policy. html (
> https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html )
> 
> If possible, it would be really great if we can get `3.0.0` release
> manager's official `branch-3.0` assessment because we have only 1 week
> before the end of March.
> 
> 
> Cloud you, the 3.0.0 release manager, share your thought and update the
> website, please?
> 
> 
> Bests
> Dongjoon.
>

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature