+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 <joell...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:11 PM Aldrin <octalene....@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 <al...@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 <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 > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
