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 <laur...@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 <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> > +1, I agree with everyone else >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong >> > <james.du...@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 <lidav...@apache.org> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <dev@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 >> > > >> > >>
