+1 (binding) On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote:
> +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 > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> >
