You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spark.apache.org by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID> on 2019/02/28 16:38:21 UTC
[VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
functional state for Spark 3.0.
For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick
summary about what this commitment means:
- We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the Spark
3.0 release
- We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable
steps to make it happen
- We will *not* delay the release without a community discussion
Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
- Add a plugin system for catalogs
- Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
- Add an implementation of the new interface that calls SessionCatalog
to load v2 tables
- Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
- Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
- Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g.,
INSERT INTO support)
Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to this
goal.
[ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a
blocker for Spark 3.0
[ ] +0: . . .
[ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
Thank you!
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Joseph Torres <jo...@databricks.com>.
I'm not worried about rushing. I worry that, without clear parameters for
the amount or types of DSv2 delays that are acceptable, we might end up
holding back 3.0 indefinitely to meet the deadline when we wouldn't have
made that decision de novo. (Or even worse, the PMC eventually feels they
must release 3.0 anyway, and then we're in the same position but everyone's
angry and frustrated.)
I do recognize that I'm particularly allergic to this risk, which is why
I'm not giving a -1 here - one of the first projects I worked on in my
career was delayed for over a year because an incomplete feature was bound
to its release date. But I don't agree that "might not resolve anything" is
the worst possible outcome here.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:48 AM Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a fine thing to VOTE on. Committers (and community,
> non-binding) can VOTE on what we like; we just don't do it often where
> not required because it's a) overkill overhead over simple lazy
> consensus, and b) it can be hard to say what the binding VOTE binds if
> it's not a discrete commit or release. This is a big enough deal that
> it's not overkill. The question is, what does it bind?
>
> It means the release is definitely blocked until the items here are
> done, but, what's 'done'? It will return to the same questions already
> on the table, like do we need to define just APIs, and to what degree
> of stability. At worst it might not resolve anything.
>
> I don't see much harm in nailing down what appears to be agreement at
> the level of specific goals, even if this isn't a vote on a release
> date or specific commit. I think it's clear these items must be
> resolved to the level of semi-stable API by 3.0, as it's coming soon
> and this is the right time to establish these APIs. It might provide
> necessary clarity and constraints to get it over the line.
>
> To Mark -- yeah, this is asserting that DSv2 is a primary or necessary
> goal of the release, just like a "Blocker" does. Why would this
> argument be different or better if it waited until 3.0 was imminent? I
> get that one might say, well, we ended up working on more important
> stuff in the meantime and now we don't have time. But this VOTE's
> purpose is to declare that this is the important stuff now.
>
> To Jose -- what's the "just a few PRs in review" issue? you worry that
> we might rush DSv2 at the end to meet a deadline? all the better to,
> if anything, agree it's important now. It's also an agreement to delay
> the release for it, not rush it. I don't see that later is a better
> time to make the decision, if rush is a worry?
>
> Given my definition, and understanding of the issues, I'd say +1
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:24 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting
> things done.
> >
> > This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals
> aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider
> it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature
> in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been
> in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community
> to commit to getting it to a functional state.
> >
> > It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but
> remember that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated
> APIs. It does not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release
> and aren't considering other goals.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not
> proper project management, IMO.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a
> functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those
> contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones,
> etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project
> should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation
> being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release
> is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes
> to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any
> API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those
> six points?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
> >>>>> Reply-To: "rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
> >>>>> Date: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
> >>>>> To: Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
> >>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
> functional state for Spark 3.0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a
> quick summary about what this commitment means:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal
> for the Spark 3.0 release
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take
> reasonable steps to make it happen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · We will not delay the release without a community
> discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP
> vote)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans
> (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing
> to this goal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2
> implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0
> >>>>> [ ] +0: . . .
> >>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ryan Blue
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Software Engineer
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Netflix
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ryan Blue
> >>> Software Engineer
> >>> Netflix
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Blue
> > Software Engineer
> > Netflix
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>.
The question is, what does it bind?
I’m not pushing for a binding statement to do this or delay the 3.0 release
because I don’t think that’s a very reasonable thing to do. It may well be
that there is a good reason for missing the goal.
So “what does it bind?” is an apt question.
A commitment binds us to do this and make a reasonable attempt at finishing
on time. If we choose not to commit, or if we choose to commit and don’t
make a reasonable attempt, then we need to ask, “what happened?” Is Spark
the right place for this work?
What I don’t want is to work on it for 3-4 more months, miss the release,
and then not have anyone take that problem seriously because we never said
it was important. If we try and fail, then we need to fix what went wrong.
This removes the option to pretend it wasn’t a goal in the first place.
That’s why I think it is important that we make a statement that we, the
community, intend to do it.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:48 AM Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a fine thing to VOTE on. Committers (and community,
> non-binding) can VOTE on what we like; we just don't do it often where
> not required because it's a) overkill overhead over simple lazy
> consensus, and b) it can be hard to say what the binding VOTE binds if
> it's not a discrete commit or release. This is a big enough deal that
> it's not overkill. The question is, what does it bind?
>
> It means the release is definitely blocked until the items here are
> done, but, what's 'done'? It will return to the same questions already
> on the table, like do we need to define just APIs, and to what degree
> of stability. At worst it might not resolve anything.
>
> I don't see much harm in nailing down what appears to be agreement at
> the level of specific goals, even if this isn't a vote on a release
> date or specific commit. I think it's clear these items must be
> resolved to the level of semi-stable API by 3.0, as it's coming soon
> and this is the right time to establish these APIs. It might provide
> necessary clarity and constraints to get it over the line.
>
> To Mark -- yeah, this is asserting that DSv2 is a primary or necessary
> goal of the release, just like a "Blocker" does. Why would this
> argument be different or better if it waited until 3.0 was imminent? I
> get that one might say, well, we ended up working on more important
> stuff in the meantime and now we don't have time. But this VOTE's
> purpose is to declare that this is the important stuff now.
>
> To Jose -- what's the "just a few PRs in review" issue? you worry that
> we might rush DSv2 at the end to meet a deadline? all the better to,
> if anything, agree it's important now. It's also an agreement to delay
> the release for it, not rush it. I don't see that later is a better
> time to make the decision, if rush is a worry?
>
> Given my definition, and understanding of the issues, I'd say +1
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:24 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting
> things done.
> >
> > This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals
> aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider
> it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature
> in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been
> in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community
> to commit to getting it to a functional state.
> >
> > It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but
> remember that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated
> APIs. It does not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release
> and aren't considering other goals.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not
> proper project management, IMO.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a
> functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those
> contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones,
> etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project
> should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation
> being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release
> is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes
> to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any
> API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those
> six points?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
> >>>>> Reply-To: "rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
> >>>>> Date: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
> >>>>> To: Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
> >>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
> functional state for Spark 3.0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a
> quick summary about what this commitment means:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal
> for the Spark 3.0 release
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take
> reasonable steps to make it happen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · We will not delay the release without a community
> discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP
> vote)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans
> (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing
> to this goal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2
> implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0
> >>>>> [ ] +0: . . .
> >>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ryan Blue
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Software Engineer
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Netflix
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ryan Blue
> >>> Software Engineer
> >>> Netflix
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Blue
> > Software Engineer
> > Netflix
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>.
This is a fine thing to VOTE on. Committers (and community,
non-binding) can VOTE on what we like; we just don't do it often where
not required because it's a) overkill overhead over simple lazy
consensus, and b) it can be hard to say what the binding VOTE binds if
it's not a discrete commit or release. This is a big enough deal that
it's not overkill. The question is, what does it bind?
It means the release is definitely blocked until the items here are
done, but, what's 'done'? It will return to the same questions already
on the table, like do we need to define just APIs, and to what degree
of stability. At worst it might not resolve anything.
I don't see much harm in nailing down what appears to be agreement at
the level of specific goals, even if this isn't a vote on a release
date or specific commit. I think it's clear these items must be
resolved to the level of semi-stable API by 3.0, as it's coming soon
and this is the right time to establish these APIs. It might provide
necessary clarity and constraints to get it over the line.
To Mark -- yeah, this is asserting that DSv2 is a primary or necessary
goal of the release, just like a "Blocker" does. Why would this
argument be different or better if it waited until 3.0 was imminent? I
get that one might say, well, we ended up working on more important
stuff in the meantime and now we don't have time. But this VOTE's
purpose is to declare that this is the important stuff now.
To Jose -- what's the "just a few PRs in review" issue? you worry that
we might rush DSv2 at the end to meet a deadline? all the better to,
if anything, agree it's important now. It's also an agreement to delay
the release for it, not rush it. I don't see that later is a better
time to make the decision, if rush is a worry?
Given my definition, and understanding of the issues, I'd say +1
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:24 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting things done.
>
> This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community to commit to getting it to a functional state.
>
> It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but remember that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated APIs. It does not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release and aren't considering other goals.
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
>>
>> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not proper project management, IMO.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones, etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those six points?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
>>>>> Reply-To: "rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
>>>>> To: Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick summary about what this commitment means:
>>>>>
>>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the Spark 3.0 release
>>>>>
>>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable steps to make it happen
>>>>>
>>>>> · We will not delay the release without a community discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to this goal.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0
>>>>> [ ] +0: . . .
>>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan Blue
>>>>>
>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>> Netflix
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ryan Blue
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Netflix
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com>.
I want to specifically highlight and +1 a point that Ryan brought up:
A commitment binds us to do this and make a reasonable attempt at finishing on time. If we choose not to commit, or if we choose to commit and don’t make a reasonable attempt, then we need to ask, “what happened?” Is Spark the right place for this work?
What I don’t want is to work on it for 3-4 more months, miss the release, and then not have anyone take that problem seriously because we never said it was important. If we try and fail, then we need to fix what went wrong. This removes the option to pretend it wasn’t a goal in the first place. That’s why I think it is important that we make a statement that we, the community, intend to do it.
This is the crux of the matter we want to tackle here. Whether or not we block the release is a decision we can make when we are closer to the release date. But the fact of the matter is that Data Source V2’s new APIs have not been given the prioritization and urgency that they deserve. This vote is binding us to consider Data Source V2 so important that it needs to be prioritized far more highly than it is right now, to the point where we would at least consider delaying the release if it meant we could finish the work.
I also don’t quite follow the reason why we shouldn’t consider features to be as important to target as API breaks in major versions. When major versions of any software product are introduced, they certainly include API breaks as necessary, but they also add new features that give users incentive to upgrade in the first place. If all we do is introduce API breaks but no new features or critical bug fixes (and critical bug fixes are often severe enough that they’re backported to earlier branches anyways), what appeal is there for users to upgrade to that latest version?
-Matt Cheah
On 2/28/19, 1:37 PM, "Mridul Muralidharan" <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am -1 on this vote for pretty much all the reasons that Mark mentioned.
A major version change gives us an opportunity to remove deprecated
interfaces, stabilize experimental/developer api, drop support for
outdated functionality/platforms and evolve the project with a vision
for foreseeable future.
IMO the primary focus should be on interface evolution, stability and
lowering tech debt which might result in breaking changes.
Which is not to say DSv2 should not be part of 3.0
Along with a lot of other exciting features also being added, it can
be one more important enhancement.
But I am not for delaying the release simply to accommodate a specific feature.
Features can be added in subsequent as well - I am yet to hear of a
good reason why it must be make it into 3.0 to need a VOTE thread.
Regards,
Mridul
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:44 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that adding new features in a major release is not forbidden, but that is just not the primary goal of a major release. If we reach the point where we are happy with the new public API before some new features are in a satisfactory state to be merged, then I don't want there to be a prior presumption that we cannot complete the primary goal of the major release. If at that point you want to argue that it is worth waiting for some new feature, then that would be fine and may have sufficient merits to warrant some delay.
>
> Regardless of whether significant new public API comes into a major release or a feature release, it should come in with an experimental annotation so that we can make changes without requiring a new major release.
>
> If you want to argue that some new features that are currently targeting 3.0.0 are significant enough that one or more of them should justify an accelerated 3.1.0 release schedule if it is not ready in time for the 3.0.0 release, then I can much more easily get behind that kind of commitment; but I remain opposed to the notion of promoting any new features to the status of blockers of 3.0.0 at this time.
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting things done.
>>
>> This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community to commit to getting it to a functional state.
>>
>> It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but remember that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated APIs. It does not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release and aren't considering other goals.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not proper project management, IMO.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones, etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those six points?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
>>>>>> Reply-To: "rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
>>>>>> To: Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick summary about what this commitment means:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the Spark 3.0 release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable steps to make it happen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · We will not delay the release without a community discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to this goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0
>>>>>> [ ] +0: . . .
>>>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan Blue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Netflix
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ryan Blue
>>>> Software Engineer
>>>> Netflix
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Netflix
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Mridul Muralidharan <mr...@gmail.com>.
I am -1 on this vote for pretty much all the reasons that Mark mentioned.
A major version change gives us an opportunity to remove deprecated
interfaces, stabilize experimental/developer api, drop support for
outdated functionality/platforms and evolve the project with a vision
for foreseeable future.
IMO the primary focus should be on interface evolution, stability and
lowering tech debt which might result in breaking changes.
Which is not to say DSv2 should not be part of 3.0
Along with a lot of other exciting features also being added, it can
be one more important enhancement.
But I am not for delaying the release simply to accommodate a specific feature.
Features can be added in subsequent as well - I am yet to hear of a
good reason why it must be make it into 3.0 to need a VOTE thread.
Regards,
Mridul
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:44 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that adding new features in a major release is not forbidden, but that is just not the primary goal of a major release. If we reach the point where we are happy with the new public API before some new features are in a satisfactory state to be merged, then I don't want there to be a prior presumption that we cannot complete the primary goal of the major release. If at that point you want to argue that it is worth waiting for some new feature, then that would be fine and may have sufficient merits to warrant some delay.
>
> Regardless of whether significant new public API comes into a major release or a feature release, it should come in with an experimental annotation so that we can make changes without requiring a new major release.
>
> If you want to argue that some new features that are currently targeting 3.0.0 are significant enough that one or more of them should justify an accelerated 3.1.0 release schedule if it is not ready in time for the 3.0.0 release, then I can much more easily get behind that kind of commitment; but I remain opposed to the notion of promoting any new features to the status of blockers of 3.0.0 at this time.
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting things done.
>>
>> This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community to commit to getting it to a functional state.
>>
>> It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but remember that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated APIs. It does not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release and aren't considering other goals.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not proper project management, IMO.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones, etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those six points?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
>>>>>> Reply-To: "rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
>>>>>> To: Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick summary about what this commitment means:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the Spark 3.0 release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable steps to make it happen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · We will not delay the release without a community discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to this goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0
>>>>>> [ ] +0: . . .
>>>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan Blue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Netflix
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ryan Blue
>>>> Software Engineer
>>>> Netflix
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Netflix
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>.
I agree that adding new features in a major release is not forbidden, but
that is just not the primary goal of a major release. If we reach the point
where we are happy with the new public API before some new features are in
a satisfactory state to be merged, then I don't want there to be a prior
presumption that we cannot complete the primary goal of the major release.
If at that point you want to argue that it is worth waiting for some new
feature, then that would be fine and may have sufficient merits to warrant
some delay.
Regardless of whether significant new public API comes into a major release
or a feature release, it should come in with an experimental annotation so
that we can make changes without requiring a new major release.
If you want to argue that some new features that are currently targeting
3.0.0 are significant enough that one or more of them should justify an
accelerated 3.1.0 release schedule if it is not ready in time for the 3.0.0
release, then I can much more easily get behind that kind of commitment;
but I remain opposed to the notion of promoting any new features to the
status of blockers of 3.0.0 at this time.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
> Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting
> things done.
>
> This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals
> aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider
> it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature
> in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been
> in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community
> to commit to getting it to a functional state.
>
> It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but remember
> that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated APIs. It does
> not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release and aren't
> considering other goals.
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not
>> proper project management, IMO.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a
>>>> functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those
>>>> contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones,
>>>> etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project
>>>> should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation
>>>> being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release
>>>> is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes
>>>> to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any
>>>> API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those
>>>>> six points?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
>>>>> *Reply-To: *"rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
>>>>> *To: *Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
>>>>> *Subject: *[VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
>>>>> functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a
>>>>> quick summary about what this commitment means:
>>>>>
>>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for
>>>>> the Spark 3.0 release
>>>>>
>>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take
>>>>> reasonable steps to make it happen
>>>>>
>>>>> · We will *not* delay the release without a community
>>>>> discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP
>>>>> vote)
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
>>>>> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans
>>>>> (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to
>>>>> this goal.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation
>>>>> a blocker for Spark 3.0
>>>>> [ ] +0: . . .
>>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan Blue
>>>>>
>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>> Netflix
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ryan Blue
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Netflix
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Joseph Torres <jo...@databricks.com>.
I’m sure we, as a community, will seriously consider any proposal that
Spark would benefit if the PMC delays release X to include changes A, B, C.
Indeed, every release I remember has had a few iterations of “can we hold
the train for a bit because it would be super great to get this PR in”.
Many contributors (including me) do believe data source v2 should be done
by 3.0, can mark the appropriate JIRAs as blockers, and will at release
time argue in favor of holding the train for a week or two if that’s what’s
needed to get all the pieces on board.
What the vote seems to imply is that we will consider holding the release
even beyond the “just a few PRs in review” level, if there are serious
outstanding design or implementation questions. That’s not a judgment I
think we can make in advance. Is it better to delay Spark 3.0 by N months
or DSv2 by 6 months? Who knows - depends on the PMC’s priorities at the
time and how confident we are in the value of N.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:24 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting
> things done.
>
> This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals
> aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider
> it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature
> in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been
> in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community
> to commit to getting it to a functional state.
>
> It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but remember
> that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated APIs. It does
> not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release and aren't
> considering other goals.
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not
>> proper project management, IMO.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a
>>>> functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those
>>>> contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones,
>>>> etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project
>>>> should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation
>>>> being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release
>>>> is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes
>>>> to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any
>>>> API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those
>>>>> six points?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
>>>>> *Reply-To: *"rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
>>>>> *To: *Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
>>>>> *Subject: *[VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
>>>>> functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a
>>>>> quick summary about what this commitment means:
>>>>>
>>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for
>>>>> the Spark 3.0 release
>>>>>
>>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take
>>>>> reasonable steps to make it happen
>>>>>
>>>>> · We will *not* delay the release without a community
>>>>> discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP
>>>>> vote)
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
>>>>> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>>>>>
>>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans
>>>>> (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to
>>>>> this goal.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation
>>>>> a blocker for Spark 3.0
>>>>> [ ] +0: . . .
>>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan Blue
>>>>>
>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>> Netflix
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ryan Blue
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Netflix
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>.
Mark, I disagree. Setting common goals is a critical part of getting things
done.
This doesn't commit the community to push out the release if the goals
aren't met, but does mean that we will, as a community, seriously consider
it. This is also an acknowledgement that this is the most important feature
in the next release (whether major or minor) for many of us. This has been
in limbo for a very long time, so I think it is important for the community
to commit to getting it to a functional state.
It sounds like your objection is to this commitment for 3.0, but remember
that 3.0 is the next release so that we can remove deprecated APIs. It does
not mean that we aren't adding new features in that release and aren't
considering other goals.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
wrote:
> Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not
> proper project management, IMO.
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a
>>> functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those
>>> contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones,
>>> etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project
>>> should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation
>>> being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release
>>> is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes
>>> to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any
>>> API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those
>>>> six points?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
>>>> *Reply-To: *"rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
>>>> *Date: *Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
>>>> *To: *Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
>>>> *Subject: *[VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
>>>> functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>>>
>>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick
>>>> summary about what this commitment means:
>>>>
>>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for
>>>> the Spark 3.0 release
>>>>
>>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take
>>>> reasonable steps to make it happen
>>>>
>>>> · We will *not* delay the release without a community
>>>> discussion
>>>>
>>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>>>
>>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>>>>
>>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP
>>>> vote)
>>>>
>>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
>>>> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>>>>
>>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>>>>
>>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>>>>
>>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans
>>>> (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>>>>
>>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to
>>>> this goal.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation
>>>> a blocker for Spark 3.0
>>>> [ ] +0: . . .
>>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Ryan Blue
>>>>
>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>
>>>> Netflix
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Netflix
>>
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>.
Then I'm -1. Setting new features as blockers of major releases is not
proper project management, IMO.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
> Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a functional
>> DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those
>> contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones,
>> etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project
>> should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation
>> being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release
>> is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes
>> to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any
>> API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those six
>>> points?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
>>> *Reply-To: *"rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
>>> *To: *Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
>>> *Subject: *[VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
>>> functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>>
>>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick
>>> summary about what this commitment means:
>>>
>>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for
>>> the Spark 3.0 release
>>>
>>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take
>>> reasonable steps to make it happen
>>>
>>> · We will *not* delay the release without a community discussion
>>>
>>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>>
>>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>>>
>>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP
>>> vote)
>>>
>>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
>>> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>>>
>>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>>>
>>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>>>
>>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans
>>> (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>>>
>>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to
>>> this goal.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a
>>> blocker for Spark 3.0
>>> [ ] +0: . . .
>>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ryan Blue
>>>
>>> Software Engineer
>>>
>>> Netflix
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>.
Mark, if this goal is adopted, "we" is the Apache Spark community.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>
wrote:
> Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a functional
> DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those
> contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones,
> etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project
> should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation
> being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release
> is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes
> to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any
> API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>>
>>
>> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those six
>> points?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
>> *Reply-To: *"rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
>> *Date: *Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
>> *To: *Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
>> *Subject: *[VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
>> functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>
>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick
>> summary about what this commitment means:
>>
>> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for
>> the Spark 3.0 release
>>
>> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take
>> reasonable steps to make it happen
>>
>> · We will *not* delay the release without a community discussion
>>
>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>
>> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>>
>> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
>>
>> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
>> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>>
>> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>>
>> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>>
>> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans
>> (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>>
>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to
>> this goal.
>>
>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a
>> blocker for Spark 3.0
>> [ ] +0: . . .
>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ryan Blue
>>
>> Software Engineer
>>
>> Netflix
>>
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>.
Who is "we" in these statements, such as "we should consider a functional
DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0"? If it means those
contributing to the DSv2 effort want to set their own goals, milestones,
etc., then that is fine with me. If you mean that the Apache Spark project
should officially commit to the lack of a functional DSv2 implementation
being a blocker for the release of Spark 3.0, then I'm -1. A major release
is just not about adding new features. Rather, it is about making changes
to the existing public API. As such, I'm opposed to any new feature or any
API addition being considered a blocker of the 3.0.0 release.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:09 AM Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
>
> Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those six
> points?
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
> *Reply-To: *"rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
> *To: *Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
> *Subject: *[VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
>
>
>
> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
> functional state for Spark 3.0.
>
> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick
> summary about what this commitment means:
>
> · We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the
> Spark 3.0 release
>
> · We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take
> reasonable steps to make it happen
>
> · We will *not* delay the release without a community discussion
>
> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>
> · Add a plugin system for catalogs
>
> · Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
>
> · Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>
> · Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>
> · Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>
> · Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans
> (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>
> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to
> this goal.
>
> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a
> blocker for Spark 3.0
> [ ] +0: . . .
> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>
> Thank you!
>
> --
>
> Ryan Blue
>
> Software Engineer
>
> Netflix
>
Re: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Matt Cheah <mc...@palantir.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
Are identifiers and namespaces going to be rolled under one of those six points?
From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
Reply-To: "rblue@netflix.com" <rb...@netflix.com>
Date: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM
To: Spark Dev List <de...@spark.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a functional state for Spark 3.0.
For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick summary about what this commitment means:
· We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the Spark 3.0 release
· We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable steps to make it happen
· We will not delay the release without a community discussion
Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
· Add a plugin system for catalogs
· Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
· Add an implementation of the new interface that calls SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
· Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
· Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
· Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to this goal.
[ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0
[ ] +0: . . .
[ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
Thank you!
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Mark Hamstra <ma...@clearstorydata.com>.
No, it is not at all dead! There just isn't any kind of expectation or
commitment that the 3.0.0 release will be held up in any way if DSv2 is not
ready to go when the rest of 3.0.0 is. There is nothing new preventing
continued work on DSv2 or its eventual inclusion in a release.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:36 PM Jean Georges Perrin <jg...@jgp.net> wrote:
> Hi, I am kind of new at the whole Apache process (not specifically Spark).
> Does that means that the DataSourceV2 is dead or stays experimental? Thanks
> for clarifying for a newbie.
>
> jg
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 11:21, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> This vote fails with the following counts:
>
> 3 +1 votes:
>
> - Matt Cheah
> - Ryan Blue
> - Sean Owen (binding)
>
> 1 -0 vote:
>
> - Jose Torres
>
> 2 -1 votes:
>
> - Mark Hamstra (binding)
> - Midrul Muralidharan (binding)
>
> Thanks for the discussion, everyone, It sounds to me that the main
> objection is simply that we’ve already committed to a release that removes
> deprecated APIs and we don’t want to commit to features at the same time.
> While I’m a bit disappointed, I think that’s a reasonable position for the
> community to take and at least is a clear result.
>
> rb
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:38 AM Ryan Blue rblue@netflix.com
> <ht...@netflix.com> wrote:
>
> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
>> functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>
>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick
>> summary about what this commitment means:
>>
>> - We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the
>> Spark 3.0 release
>> - We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable
>> steps to make it happen
>> - We will *not* delay the release without a community discussion
>>
>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>
>> - Add a plugin system for catalogs
>> - Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
>> - Add an implementation of the new interface that calls
>> SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>> - Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>> - Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>> - Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g.,
>> INSERT INTO support)
>>
>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to
>> this goal.
>>
>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a
>> blocker for Spark 3.0
>> [ ] +0: . . .
>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>
>> Thank you!
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Netflix
>>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Jean Georges Perrin <jg...@jgp.net>.
Hi, I am kind of new at the whole Apache process (not specifically Spark). Does that means that the DataSourceV2 is dead or stays experimental? Thanks for clarifying for a newbie.
jg
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 11:21, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> This vote fails with the following counts:
>
> 3 +1 votes:
>
> Matt Cheah
> Ryan Blue
> Sean Owen (binding)
> 1 -0 vote:
>
> Jose Torres
> 2 -1 votes:
>
> Mark Hamstra (binding)
> Midrul Muralidharan (binding)
> Thanks for the discussion, everyone, It sounds to me that the main objection is simply that we’ve already committed to a release that removes deprecated APIs and we don’t want to commit to features at the same time. While I’m a bit disappointed, I think that’s a reasonable position for the community to take and at least is a clear result.
>
> rb
>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:38 AM Ryan Blue rblue@netflix.com wrote:
>>
>> I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a functional state for Spark 3.0.
>>
>> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick summary about what this commitment means:
>>
>> We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the Spark 3.0 release
>> We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable steps to make it happen
>> We will not delay the release without a community discussion
>> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>>
>> Add a plugin system for catalogs
>> Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
>> Add an implementation of the new interface that calls SessionCatalog to load v2 tables
>> Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
>> Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
>> Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g., INSERT INTO support)
>> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to this goal.
>>
>> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a blocker for Spark 3.0
>> [ ] +0: . . .
>> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Netflix
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
[RESULT] [VOTE] Functional DataSourceV2 in Spark 3.0
Posted by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>.
This vote fails with the following counts:
3 +1 votes:
- Matt Cheah
- Ryan Blue
- Sean Owen (binding)
1 -0 vote:
- Jose Torres
2 -1 votes:
- Mark Hamstra (binding)
- Midrul Muralidharan (binding)
Thanks for the discussion, everyone, It sounds to me that the main
objection is simply that we’ve already committed to a release that removes
deprecated APIs and we don’t want to commit to features at the same time.
While I’m a bit disappointed, I think that’s a reasonable position for the
community to take and at least is a clear result.
rb
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:38 AM Ryan Blue rblue@netflix.com
<ht...@netflix.com> wrote:
I’d like to call a vote for committing to getting DataSourceV2 in a
> functional state for Spark 3.0.
>
> For more context, please see the discussion thread, but here is a quick
> summary about what this commitment means:
>
> - We think that a “functional DSv2” is an achievable goal for the
> Spark 3.0 release
> - We will consider this a blocker for Spark 3.0, and take reasonable
> steps to make it happen
> - We will *not* delay the release without a community discussion
>
> Here’s what we’ve defined as a functional DSv2:
>
> - Add a plugin system for catalogs
> - Add an interface for table catalogs (see the ongoing SPIP vote)
> - Add an implementation of the new interface that calls SessionCatalog
> to load v2 tables
> - Add a resolution rule to load v2 tables from the v2 catalog
> - Add CTAS logical and physical plan nodes
> - Add conversions from SQL parsed plans to v2 logical plans (e.g.,
> INSERT INTO support)
>
> Please vote in the next 3 days on whether you agree with committing to
> this goal.
>
> [ ] +1: Agree that we should consider a functional DSv2 implementation a
> blocker for Spark 3.0
> [ ] +0: . . .
> [ ] -1: I disagree with this goal because . . .
>
> Thank you!
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix