+1 (binding) On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:43 PM L. C. Hsieh <vii...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +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 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> >
