Hi
Vote thread for druid 29.0.1 is up.
https://lists.apache.org/thread/6syof9fmnb7vbyjrpowrt7s73rh2bqy4
Thanks
Karan
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:10 AM Vadim Ogievetsky
wrote:
> That sounds great to me. Thank you +1
>
> On 2024/02/20 18:58:35 Laksh Singla wrote:
> > Since the artifacts were
That sounds great to me. Thank you +1
On 2024/02/20 18:58:35 Laksh Singla wrote:
> Since the artifacts were already out at the time of the Vad's vote, I will
> be going ahead with the release of Druid 29.0.0. However, I do echo with
> the comments mentioned in the mail, therefore we can take the
Since the artifacts were already out at the time of the Vad's vote, I will
be going ahead with the release of Druid 29.0.0. However, I do echo with
the comments mentioned in the mail, therefore we can take the following
steps to prevent misfortune for the unexpecting users:
For the current Druid
Vad, The vote was closed by Laksh, given that 72 hours had passed and
artifacts had been released. Given we had the three binding +1s, we can
proceed as usual. I suggest that we call out the caveat clearly in the
release notes section.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:53 PM Vadim Ogievetsky
wrote:
>
Thank you for all the work getting this release to this point. As the author of
https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/15588 I regretfully vote -1 on this
release. To echo Gian's point I think the chance of some user injuring a
production Datasource with an innocent query pasted into the wrong
Thanks to everyone who participated in the vote! The results are as follows:
Kashif Faraz: +1
Clint Wylie: +1
Karan Kumar: +1
Gian Merlino: 0
The vote has passed with 3 binding +1's and 1 binding 0.
Regards
Laksh Singla
Here's a patch with the validation idea:
https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/15920
It adds validation for the most problematic case (mixing strings and arrays),
provides a way to override the validation, and makes the warning log on the
controller task when arrayIngestMode is 'mvd' more
I just learned that arrayIngestMode is not actually new, just
https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/15588 is. However this will still make
it more likely that people accidentally break their tables, so I am still
-0. Just, slightly less so. I still think it would be a good idea, for
Druid 29, to
Thanks for managing this release!
My vote is -0, let me explain why. I am concerned about usability issues
with the new arrayIngestMode feature. There are various issues when mixing
MVD strings and string arrays in the same column: as soon as arrays show up
in a column, various "classic
+1 (binding)
src package:
- verified checksum and signature
- LICENSE and NOTICE present
- built binary distribution, ran MSQ quickstart
binary package:
- verified checksum and signature
- LICENSE and NOTICE present
- ran MSQ quickstart
docker:
- verified checksum
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 5:41
+1 (binding)
src package:
- verified checksum and signature
- LICENSE and NOTICE present
- rat check passed
- built binary distribution, ran MSQ ingestion, ran some queries
binary package:
- verified checksum and signature
- LICENSE and NOTICE present
- ran native ingestion, ran some queries
+1 (binding)
src package:
- verified checksum and signature
- checked for LICENSE and NOTICE
- rat check passed
- built binary distribution
- ingested sample wikipedia dataset, ran some queries, reindexed with range
partitioning
binary package:
- verified checksum and signature
- ingested sample
Hi all,
I have created a build for Apache Druid 29.0.0, release
candidate 1.
Thanks to everyone who has helped contribute to the release! You can read
the proposed release notes here:
https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/15896
The release candidate has been tagged in GitHub as
13 matches
Mail list logo
