+1 In <5e1c3154-a9f1-499d-be39-82685fefd...@app.fastmail.com> "[VOTE] Flight SQL as experimental" on Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:42:09 -0500, "David Li" <lidav...@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 <emkornfi...@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 <lidav...@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 < >>> emkornfi...@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 <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 >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> > >>>
