+1 (binding)
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:27 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@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 <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 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>
