You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@arrow.apache.org by David Li <li...@apache.org> on 2023/12/08 19:42:09 UTC
[VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've discussed a few things.
I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make it stable:
- Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but leave the option definition for future additions)
- Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no backwards-incompatible changes)
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as other
>> > standards in Arrow
>> >
>> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData) I
>> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall
>> > spec.
>> >
>> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places (like
>> > extension APIs) that are likely to change
>> >
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
>> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything
>> > > currently in the spec.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
>> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
>> > > discussion.
>> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show
>> > up
>> > > in
>> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused
>> > about
>> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current
>> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
>> extensions
>> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
>> phase?
>> > > >
>> > > > Laurent
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
>> emkornfield@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
>> still
>> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> Micah
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything
>> > else
>> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
>> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
>> > > >> experimental
>> > > >> > as
>> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those?
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
>> > > <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
>> > consider
>> > > it
>> > > >> > >> stable
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding)
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> Laurent
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
>> > > >> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
>> > > >> > >> > <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now.
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________
>> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
>> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
>> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
>> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
>> > beginning.
>> > > >> Given
>> > > >> > >> that
>> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should
>> we
>> > > >> remove
>> > > >> > >> this
>> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes
>> > > >> anymore.
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR:
>> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > -David
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
[VOTE][RESULT] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by David Li <li...@apache.org>.
The vote passes with 5 binding, 2 non-binding +1 votes.
I'll merge Laurent's PR and then file/start on the rest of the followups.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023, at 04:00, vin jake wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sutou Kouhei <ko...@clear-code.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> In <5e...@app.fastmail.com>
>> "[VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental" on Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:42:09 -0500,
>> "David Li" <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've
>> discussed a few things.
>> >
>> > I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and
>> make it stable:
>> >
>> > - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but
>> leave the option definition for future additions)
>> > - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer
>> to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no
>> backwards-incompatible changes)
>> >
>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>> >
>> > [ ] +1
>> > [ ] +0
>> > [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as
>> other
>> >>> > standards in Arrow
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at
>> InfluxData) I
>> >>> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the
>> overall
>> >>> > spec.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places
>> (like
>> >>> > extension APIs) that are likely to change
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Andrew
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
>> >>> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from
>> anything
>> >>> > > currently in the spec.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
>> >>> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
>> >>> > > discussion.
>> >>> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which
>> show
>> >>> > up
>> >>> > > in
>> >>> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people
>> confused
>> >>> > about
>> >>> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the
>> current
>> >>> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
>> >>> extensions
>> >>> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
>> >>> phase?
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Laurent
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
>> >>> emkornfield@gmail.com>
>> >>> > > > wrote:
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
>> >>> still
>> >>> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> Thanks,
>> >>> > > >> Micah
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and
>> anything
>> >>> > else
>> >>> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
>> >>> > > >> >
>> >>> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
>> >>> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
>> >>> > > >> experimental
>> >>> > > >> > as
>> >>> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those?
>> >>> > > >> > >
>> >>> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
>> >>> > > <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
>> >>> > > >> >
>> >>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> >>> > > >> > >
>> >>> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
>> >>> > consider
>> >>> > > it
>> >>> > > >> > >> stable
>> >>> > > >> > >>
>> >>> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding)
>> >>> > > >> > >>
>> >>> > > >> > >> Laurent
>> >>> > > >> > >>
>> >>> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
>> >>> > > >> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
>> >>> > > >> > >
>> >>> > > >> > >> wrote:
>> >>> > > >> > >>
>> >>> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else
>> >>> > > >> > >> >
>> >>> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
>> >>> > > >> > >> > <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>> > > >> > >> >
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases
>> now.
>> >>> > > >> > >> > >
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
>> >>> > > >> > >> > >
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
>> >>> > beginning.
>> >>> > > >> Given
>> >>> > > >> > >> that
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now,
>> should
>> >>> we
>> >>> > > >> remove
>> >>> > > >> > >> this
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking
>> changes
>> >>> > > >> anymore.
>> >>> > > >> > >> > >
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR:
>> >>> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
>> >>> > > >> > >> > >
>> >>> > > >> > >> > > -David
>> >>> > > >> > >> > >
>> >>> > > >> > >> >
>> >>> > > >> > >>
>> >>> > > >> >
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by vin jake <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sutou Kouhei <ko...@clear-code.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> In <5e...@app.fastmail.com>
> "[VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental" on Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:42:09 -0500,
> "David Li" <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've
> discussed a few things.
> >
> > I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and
> make it stable:
> >
> > - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but
> leave the option definition for future additions)
> > - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer
> to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no
> backwards-incompatible changes)
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as
> other
> >>> > standards in Arrow
> >>> >
> >>> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at
> InfluxData) I
> >>> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the
> overall
> >>> > spec.
> >>> >
> >>> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places
> (like
> >>> > extension APIs) that are likely to change
> >>> >
> >>> > Andrew
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
> >>> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from
> anything
> >>> > > currently in the spec.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
> >>> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
> >>> > > discussion.
> >>> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which
> show
> >>> > up
> >>> > > in
> >>> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people
> confused
> >>> > about
> >>> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the
> current
> >>> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
> >>> extensions
> >>> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
> >>> phase?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Laurent
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
> >>> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
> >>> still
> >>> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> Thanks,
> >>> > > >> Micah
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and
> anything
> >>> > else
> >>> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
> >>> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
> >>> > > >> experimental
> >>> > > >> > as
> >>> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those?
> >>> > > >> > >
> >>> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
> >>> > > <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >> > > wrote:
> >>> > > >> > >
> >>> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
> >>> > consider
> >>> > > it
> >>> > > >> > >> stable
> >>> > > >> > >>
> >>> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding)
> >>> > > >> > >>
> >>> > > >> > >> Laurent
> >>> > > >> > >>
> >>> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
> >>> > > >> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
> >>> > > >> > >
> >>> > > >> > >> wrote:
> >>> > > >> > >>
> >>> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else
> >>> > > >> > >> >
> >>> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
> >>> > > >> > >> > <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>> > > >> > >> >
> >>> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases
> now.
> >>> > > >> > >> > >
> >>> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> >>> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________
> >>> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
> >>> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
> >>> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
> >>> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
> >>> > > >> > >> > >
> >>> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
> >>> > beginning.
> >>> > > >> Given
> >>> > > >> > >> that
> >>> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now,
> should
> >>> we
> >>> > > >> remove
> >>> > > >> > >> this
> >>> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking
> changes
> >>> > > >> anymore.
> >>> > > >> > >> > >
> >>> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR:
> >>> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
> >>> > > >> > >> > >
> >>> > > >> > >> > > -David
> >>> > > >> > >> > >
> >>> > > >> > >> >
> >>> > > >> > >>
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by Sutou Kouhei <ko...@clear-code.com>.
+1
In <5e...@app.fastmail.com>
"[VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental" on Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:42:09 -0500,
"David Li" <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've discussed a few things.
>
> I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make it stable:
>
> - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but leave the option definition for future additions)
> - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no backwards-incompatible changes)
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as other
>>> > standards in Arrow
>>> >
>>> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData) I
>>> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall
>>> > spec.
>>> >
>>> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places (like
>>> > extension APIs) that are likely to change
>>> >
>>> > Andrew
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
>>> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything
>>> > > currently in the spec.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
>>> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
>>> > > discussion.
>>> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show
>>> > up
>>> > > in
>>> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused
>>> > about
>>> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current
>>> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
>>> extensions
>>> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
>>> phase?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Laurent
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
>>> emkornfield@gmail.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
>>> still
>>> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> Thanks,
>>> > > >> Micah
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything
>>> > else
>>> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
>>> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
>>> > > >> experimental
>>> > > >> > as
>>> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those?
>>> > > >> > >
>>> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
>>> > > <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > > wrote:
>>> > > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
>>> > consider
>>> > > it
>>> > > >> > >> stable
>>> > > >> > >>
>>> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding)
>>> > > >> > >>
>>> > > >> > >> Laurent
>>> > > >> > >>
>>> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
>>> > > >> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
>>> > > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >> wrote:
>>> > > >> > >>
>>> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else
>>> > > >> > >> >
>>> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
>>> > > >> > >> > <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> > > >> > >> >
>>> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now.
>>> > > >> > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>>> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________
>>> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
>>> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
>>> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
>>> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
>>> > > >> > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
>>> > beginning.
>>> > > >> Given
>>> > > >> > >> that
>>> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should
>>> we
>>> > > >> remove
>>> > > >> > >> this
>>> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes
>>> > > >> anymore.
>>> > > >> > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR:
>>> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
>>> > > >> > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >> > > -David
>>> > > >> > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >> >
>>> > > >> > >>
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>.
+1 (binding)
Sorry for the noise about a new thread, I just checked the archive[1] and
this is in a different thread. Thank you for this David.
Andrew
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/9t78clfqzsby08d2ryc83gwrtm3cthq8
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:15 PM Joel Lubinitsky <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:11 PM Aldrin <oc...@pm.me.invalid> wrote:
>
> > This thread does have [VOTE] for me. does it not for you?
> >
> > Sent from Proton Mail <https://proton.me/mail/home> for iOS
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:09, Andrew Lamb <alamb@influxdata.com
> > <On+Fri,+Dec+8,+2023+at+12:09,+Andrew+Lamb+%3C%3Ca+href=>> wrote:
> >
> > Would it be possible to change the thread's subject line to "[VOTE]" so
> it
> > is more visible that we are proposing a change? I worry that this will be
> > buried at the bottom of something that says "[DISCUSS]"
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:43 PM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've
> > > discussed a few things.
> > >
> > > I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and
> make
> > > it stable:
> > >
> > > - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but
> > > leave the option definition for future additions)
> > > - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer
> refer
> > > to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no
> > > backwards-incompatible changes)
> > >
> > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <
> emkornfield@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level
> as
> > > other
> > > >> > standards in Arrow
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at
> > InfluxData)
> > > I
> > > >> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the
> > overall
> > > >> > spec.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places
> > > (like
> > > >> > extension APIs) that are likely to change
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Andrew
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
> > > >> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from
> > > anything
> > > >> > > currently in the spec.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
> > > >> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
> > > >> > > discussion.
> > > >> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files
> which
> > > show
> > > >> > up
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people
> > confused
> > > >> > about
> > > >> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the
> > current
> > > >> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
> > > >> extensions
> > > >> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their
> incubating
> > > >> phase?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Laurent
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
> > > >> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions
> are
> > > >> still
> > > >> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >> Micah
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <lidavidm@apache.org
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and
> > > anything
> > > >> > else
> > > >> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all
> marked
> > > >> > > >> experimental
> > > >> > > >> > as
> > > >> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those?
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
> > > >> > > <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and
> we
> > > >> > consider
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > >> > >> stable
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding)
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >> Laurent
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
> > > >> > > >> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
> > > >> > > >> > >> > <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases
> > now.
> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
> > > >> > beginning.
> > > >> > > >> Given
> > > >> > > >> > >> that
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now,
> > > should
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > >> remove
> > > >> > > >> > >> this
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking
> > > changes
> > > >> > > >> anymore.
> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR:
> > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > > -David
> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by Joel Lubinitsky <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:11 PM Aldrin <oc...@pm.me.invalid> wrote:
> This thread does have [VOTE] for me. does it not for you?
>
> Sent from Proton Mail <https://proton.me/mail/home> for iOS
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:09, Andrew Lamb <alamb@influxdata.com
> <On+Fri,+Dec+8,+2023+at+12:09,+Andrew+Lamb+%3C%3Ca+href=>> wrote:
>
> Would it be possible to change the thread's subject line to "[VOTE]" so it
> is more visible that we are proposing a change? I worry that this will be
> buried at the bottom of something that says "[DISCUSS]"
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:43 PM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've
> > discussed a few things.
> >
> > I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make
> > it stable:
> >
> > - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but
> > leave the option definition for future additions)
> > - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer
> > to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no
> > backwards-incompatible changes)
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfield@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as
> > other
> > >> > standards in Arrow
> > >> >
> > >> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at
> InfluxData)
> > I
> > >> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the
> overall
> > >> > spec.
> > >> >
> > >> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places
> > (like
> > >> > extension APIs) that are likely to change
> > >> >
> > >> > Andrew
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
> > >> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from
> > anything
> > >> > > currently in the spec.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
> > >> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
> > >> > > discussion.
> > >> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which
> > show
> > >> > up
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people
> confused
> > >> > about
> > >> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the
> current
> > >> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
> > >> extensions
> > >> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
> > >> phase?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Laurent
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
> > >> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
> > >> still
> > >> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > > >> Micah
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and
> > anything
> > >> > else
> > >> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
> > >> > > >> experimental
> > >> > > >> > as
> > >> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those?
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
> > >> > > <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
> > >> > consider
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > >> > >> stable
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding)
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> Laurent
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
> > >> > > >> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
> > >> > > >> > >> > <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases
> now.
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> > >> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________
> > >> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
> > >> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
> > >> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
> > >> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
> > >> > beginning.
> > >> > > >> Given
> > >> > > >> > >> that
> > >> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now,
> > should
> > >> we
> > >> > > >> remove
> > >> > > >> > >> this
> > >> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking
> > changes
> > >> > > >> anymore.
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR:
> > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > -David
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by Aldrin <oc...@pm.me.INVALID>.
This thread does have [VOTE] for me. does it not for you?
Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:09, Andrew Lamb <[alamb@influxdata.com](mailto:On
Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:09, Andrew Lamb <<a href=)> wrote:
> Would it be possible to change the thread's subject line to "[VOTE]" so it
> is more visible that we are proposing a change? I worry that this will be
> buried at the bottom of something that says "[DISCUSS]"
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:43 PM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've
> > discussed a few things.
> >
> > I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make
> > it stable:
> >
> > \- Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but
> > leave the option definition for future additions)
> > \- Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer
> > to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no
> > backwards-incompatible changes)
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as
> > other
> > >> > standards in Arrow
> > >> >
> > >> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData)
> > I
> > >> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the
> overall
> > >> > spec.
> > >> >
> > >> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places
> > (like
> > >> > extension APIs) that are likely to change
> > >> >
> > >> > Andrew
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
> > >> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from
> > anything
> > >> > > currently in the spec.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
> > >> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
> > >> > > discussion.
> > >> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which
> > show
> > >> > up
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people
> confused
> > >> > about
> > >> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the
> current
> > >> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
> > >> extensions
> > >> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
> > >> phase?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Laurent
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
> > >> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
> > >> still
> > >> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > > >> Micah
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and
> > anything
> > >> > else
> > >> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
> > >> > > >> experimental
> > >> > > >> > as
> > >> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those?
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
> > >> > > <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
> > >> > consider
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > >> > >> stable
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding)
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> Laurent
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
> > >> > > >> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
> > >> > > >> > >> > <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases
> now.
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> > >> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________
> > >> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
> > >> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
> > >> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
> > >> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
> > >> > beginning.
> > >> > > >> Given
> > >> > > >> > >> that
> > >> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now,
> > should
> > >> we
> > >> > > >> remove
> > >> > > >> > >> this
> > >> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking
> > changes
> > >> > > >> anymore.
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR:
> > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> > > -David
> > >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>.
Would it be possible to change the thread's subject line to "[VOTE]" so it
is more visible that we are proposing a change? I worry that this will be
buried at the bottom of something that says "[DISCUSS]"
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:43 PM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've
> discussed a few things.
>
> I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make
> it stable:
>
> - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but
> leave the option definition for future additions)
> - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer
> to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no
> backwards-incompatible changes)
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as
> other
> >> > standards in Arrow
> >> >
> >> > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData)
> I
> >> > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall
> >> > spec.
> >> >
> >> > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places
> (like
> >> > extension APIs) that are likely to change
> >> >
> >> > Andrew
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
> >> > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from
> anything
> >> > > currently in the spec.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
> >> > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
> >> > > discussion.
> >> > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which
> show
> >> > up
> >> > > in
> >> > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused
> >> > about
> >> > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current
> >> > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
> >> extensions
> >> > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
> >> phase?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Laurent
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
> >> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
> >> still
> >> > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> Micah
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and
> anything
> >> > else
> >> > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
> >> > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
> >> > > >> experimental
> >> > > >> > as
> >> > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those?
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
> >> > > <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
> >> > consider
> >> > > it
> >> > > >> > >> stable
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> +1 (not binding)
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> Laurent
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
> >> > > >> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
> >> > > >> > >> > <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now.
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> >> > > >> > >> > > ________________________________
> >> > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
> >> > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
> >> > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
> >> > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
> >> > beginning.
> >> > > >> Given
> >> > > >> > >> that
> >> > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now,
> should
> >> we
> >> > > >> remove
> >> > > >> > >> this
> >> > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking
> changes
> >> > > >> anymore.
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR:
> >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > -David
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:43 PM L. C. Hsieh <vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:27 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> >
> > Le 08/12/2023 à 20:42, David Li a écrit :
> > > Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that
> we've discussed a few things.
> > >
> > > I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and
> make it stable:
> > >
> > > - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but
> leave the option definition for future additions)
> > > - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer
> refer to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no
> backwards-incompatible changes)
> > >
> > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <
> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as
> other
> > >>>> standards in Arrow
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at
> InfluxData) I
> > >>>> agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the
> overall
> > >>>> spec.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places
> (like
> > >>>> extension APIs) that are likely to change
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Andrew
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
> > >>>>> ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from
> anything
> > >>>>> currently in the spec.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
> > >>>>>> I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
> > >>>>> discussion.
> > >>>>>> I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which
> show
> > >>>> up
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>> Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused
> > >>>> about
> > >>>>>> the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current
> > >>>>>> Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
> > >>> extensions
> > >>>>>> should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
> > >>> phase?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Laurent
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
> > >>> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
> > >>> still
> > >>>>>>> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>> Micah
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and
> anything
> > >>>> else
> > >>>>>>>> referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
> > >>>>>>> experimental
> > >>>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>> well. Would this include changes to any of those?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
> > >>>>> <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
> > >>>> consider
> > >>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>> stable
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 (not binding)
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Laurent
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
> > >>>>>>> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +1, I agree with everyone else
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
> > >>>> beginning.
> > >>>>>>> Given
> > >>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should
> > >>> we
> > >>>>>>> remove
> > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes
> > >>>>>>> anymore.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This came up in a GitHub PR:
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -David
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by "L. C. Hsieh" <vi...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:27 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
>
> Le 08/12/2023 à 20:42, David Li a écrit :
> > Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've discussed a few things.
> >
> > I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make it stable:
> >
> > - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but leave the option definition for future additions)
> > - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no backwards-incompatible changes)
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as other
> >>>> standards in Arrow
> >>>>
> >>>> Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData) I
> >>>> agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall
> >>>> spec.
> >>>>
> >>>> It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places (like
> >>>> extension APIs) that are likely to change
> >>>>
> >>>> Andrew
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
> >>>>> ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything
> >>>>> currently in the spec.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
> >>>>>> I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
> >>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>> I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show
> >>>> up
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>> Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused
> >>>> about
> >>>>>> the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current
> >>>>>> Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
> >>> extensions
> >>>>>> should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
> >>> phase?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Laurent
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
> >>> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
> >>> still
> >>>>>>> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Micah
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything
> >>>> else
> >>>>>>>> referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
> >>>>>>> experimental
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> well. Would this include changes to any of those?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
> >>>>> <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
> >>>> consider
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>> stable
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 (not binding)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Laurent
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
> >>>>>>> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> +1, I agree with everyone else
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
> >>>>>>>>>>> <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
> >>>> beginning.
> >>>>>>> Given
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should
> >>> we
> >>>>>>> remove
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes
> >>>>>>> anymore.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This came up in a GitHub PR:
> >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -David
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
Re: [VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
+1 (binding)
Le 08/12/2023 à 20:42, David Li a écrit :
> Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've discussed a few things.
>
> I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make it stable:
>
> - Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but leave the option definition for future additions)
> - Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer to Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no backwards-incompatible changes)
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <em...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as other
>>>> standards in Arrow
>>>>
>>>> Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData) I
>>>> agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall
>>>> spec.
>>>>
>>>> It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places (like
>>>> extension APIs) that are likely to change
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
>>>>> ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything
>>>>> currently in the spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
>>>>>> I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>> I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show
>>>> up
>>>>> in
>>>>>> Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused
>>>> about
>>>>>> the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current
>>>>>> Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
>>> extensions
>>>>>> should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
>>> phase?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Laurent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
>>> emkornfield@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
>>> still
>>>>>>> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Micah
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <li...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything
>>>> else
>>>>>>>> referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
>>>>>>> experimental
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> well. Would this include changes to any of those?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
>>>>> <laurent@dremio.com.invalid
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
>>>> consider
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 (not binding)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Laurent
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
>>>>>>> <matt@voltrondata.com.invalid
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1, I agree with everyone else
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
>>>>>>>>>>> <Ja...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: David Li <li...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@arrow.apache.org <de...@arrow.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
>>>> beginning.
>>>>>>> Given
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should
>>> we
>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes
>>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This came up in a GitHub PR:
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>