[RESULT][VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

Hi all, Thanks to everyone who voted and participated in the discussion! The vote has PASSED with 6 binding +1, 0 non-binding +0 and 0 -1 votes. Binding votes: - John - Michael - Beto - Max - Diego - Yongjie Link to the vote thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/0l6kswr05ykwb3nzz3zp75m5o8rhwon

Re: [VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

+1 binding On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 11:38 AM Diego Pucci wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Il giorno mar 3 ott 2023 alle ore 04:35 Maxime Beauchemin < > maximebeauche...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > +1, binding > > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 16:47, Beto Dealmeida > > > > > wrote: > > > > > +1, binding >

Re: [VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

+1 (binding) Il giorno mar 3 ott 2023 alle ore 04:35 Maxime Beauchemin < maximebeauche...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > +1, binding > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 16:47, Beto Dealmeida > > wrote: > > > +1, binding > > > > On 10/2/23 3:46 PM, Justin Park wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Since it seems the pro

Re: [VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

+1, binding On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 16:47, Beto Dealmeida wrote: > +1, binding > > On 10/2/23 3:46 PM, Justin Park wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for > > non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has been largely non-controversial, > > I’d like to r

Re: [VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

+1,  binding On 10/2/23 3:46 PM, Justin Park wrote: Hi, Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has been largely non-controversial, I’d like to raise a VOTE. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number

Re: [VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

+1 (binding) Best regards, Michael S. Molina > On 2 Oct 2023, at 20:27, John Bodley wrote: > > +1 (binding) > >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 3:47 PM Justin Park wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for >> non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has be

Re: [VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

+1 (binding) On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 3:47 PM Justin Park wrote: > Hi, > > Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for > non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has been largely non-controversial, > I’d like to raise a VOTE. > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or unti

[VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

Hi, Since it seems the process outlined in the [SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence [1] has been largely non-controversial, I’d like to raise a VOTE. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number of votes are reached. Please vote accordingly: [ ] +1

[VOTE][SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence

Hi, Following up from the corresponding DISCUSS email I sent on 4/25, I was hoping to call a vote on [SIP-93] Proposal for non-blocking SQL Lab persistence . The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number of votes are rea