I'm convinced. This is enough deprecation notice for me.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Tim Armstrong
wrote:
> I don't think we need to bump a major version to remove something that we
> never claimed to support though. The docs are pretty clear:
>
> https://impala.apache.org/docs/build/html/to
Right, I was kind of assuming that noone was interested in maintaining it,
but if anyone reading this thread wants to volunteer, they should pipe up
now.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Lars Volker
wrote:
> >
> > Even if people were using it, would that affect our decision if there's
> > noone
>
> Even if people were using it, would that affect our decision if there's
> noone to maintain it? I don't think we were ambiguous about whether writing
> those formats was supported or not.
>
I agree, if we cannot maintain it, we should remove it. I was thinking of
the other option you outlined
I'm in favor of removing code that's broken, largely untested, and disabled
by default, if no one has plans to fix it in a reasonable amount of time.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:09 AM Philip Zeyliger
wrote:
> I'm supportive of removing them.
>
> -- Philip
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 AM Tim
I'm supportive of removing them.
-- Philip
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 AM Tim Armstrong
wrote:
> Hi Edward,
> I was talking about write support, specifically. Reading those formats is
> supported without any configuration changes.
>
> - Tim
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Edward Caprio
Lars,
Even if people were using it, would that affect our decision if there's
noone to maintain it? I don't think we were ambiguous about whether writing
those formats was supported or not.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Tim Armstrong
wrote:
> Hi Edward,
> I was talking about write suppor
Hi Edward,
I was talking about write support, specifically. Reading those formats is
supported without any configuration changes.
- Tim
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Edward Capriolo
wrote:
> I was going to say. Not a current user ATM, but there are defiantly people
> with text+gzip Sequenc
Tim's original proposal was to remove *write* support for these formats. We
fully support reading these formats and would continue to do so.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:32 AM Edward Capriolo
wrote:
> I was going to say. Not a current user ATM, but there are defiantly people
> with text+gzip Sequen
I was going to say. Not a current user ATM, but there are defiantly people
with text+gzip SequenceFile(Text). It is nice to be able to work with
those, I was also at a shop that went hard for AVRO + Impala but since
switched off.
I also do not understand what is meant by "behind a query option" si
I'm in favor of removing unsupported code, especially when doing so makes
development of the rest of the codebase easier and saves us cycles for
maintaining it. On the other hand it would suck if users had come to rely
on it and we break it, even though we recommend against it.
We could make a rea
I don't think we need to bump a major version to remove something that we
never claimed to support though. The docs are pretty clear:
https://impala.apache.org/docs/build/html/topics/impala_allow_unsupported_formats.html
"An obsolete query option from early work on support for file formats. Do
no
11 matches
Mail list logo
