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 <lidav...@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 <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 > >> > > > >> > > >> >
