Thanks for the context on the Flink side! I think it sounds reasonable to keep up to date with the latest supported Flink version. If we want, we could later go with something similar to what we do for Spark but we’ll see how it goes and what the Flink community needs. We should probably add a section to our Flink docs that explains and links to Flink’s support policy and has a table of Iceberg versions that work with Flink versions. (We should probably have the same table for Spark, too!)
For Spark, I’m also leaning toward the modified option 3 where we keep all of the code in the main repository but only build with one module at a time by default. It makes sense to switch based on modules — rather than selecting src paths within a module — so that it is easy to run a build with all modules if you choose to — for example, when building release binaries. The reason I think we should go with option 3 is for testing. If we have a single repo with api, core, etc. and spark then changes to the common modules can be tested by CI actions. Updates to individual Spark modules would be completely independent. There is a slight inconvenience that when an API used by Spark changes, the author would still need to fix multiple Spark versions. But the trade-off is that with a separate repository like option 2, changes that break Spark versions are not caught and then the Spark repository’s CI ends up failing on completely unrelated changes. That would be a major pain, felt by everyone contributing to the Spark integration, so I think option 3 is the best path forward. It sounds like we probably have some agreement now, but please speak up if you think another option would be better. The next step is to prototype the build changes to test out option 3. Or if you prefer option 2, then prototype those changes as well. I think that Anton is planning to do this, but if you have time and the desire to do it please reach out and coordinate with us! Ryan On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 9:12 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wing, sorry, my earlier message probably misled you. I was speaking my > personal opinion on Flink version support. > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 8:03 PM Wing Yew Poon <wyp...@cloudera.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> Hi OpenInx, >> I'm sorry I misunderstood the thinking of the Flink community. Thanks for >> the clarification. >> - Wing Yew >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 7:15 PM OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Wing >>> >>> As we discussed above, we community prefer to choose option.2 or >>> option.3. So in fact, when we planned to upgrade the flink version from >>> 1.12 to 1.13, we are doing our best to guarantee the master iceberg repo >>> could work fine for both flink1.12 & flink1.13. More context please see >>> [1], [2], [3] >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/3116 >>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/3183 >>> [3] >>> https://lists.apache.org/x/thread.html/ra438e89eeec2d4623a32822e21739c8f2229505522d73d1034e34198@%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:27 AM Wing Yew Poon >>> <wyp...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> In the last community sync, we spent a little time on this topic. For >>>> Spark support, there are currently two options under consideration: >>>> >>>> Option 2: Separate repo for the Spark support. Use branches for >>>> supporting different Spark versions. Main branch for the latest Spark >>>> version (3.2 to begin with). >>>> Tooling needs to be built for producing regular snapshots of core >>>> Iceberg in a consumable way for this repo. Unclear if commits to core >>>> Iceberg will be tested pre-commit against Spark support; my impression is >>>> that they will not be, and the Spark support build can be broken by changes >>>> to core. >>>> >>>> A variant of option 3 (which we will simply call Option 3 going >>>> forward): Single repo, separate module (subdirectory) for each Spark >>>> version to be supported. Code duplication in each Spark module (no attempt >>>> to refactor out common code). Each module built against the specific >>>> version of Spark to be supported, producing a runtime jar built against >>>> that version. CI will test all modules. Support can be provided for only >>>> building the modules a developer cares about. >>>> >>>> More input was sought and people are encouraged to voice their >>>> preference. >>>> I lean towards Option 3. >>>> >>>> - Wing Yew >>>> >>>> ps. In the sync, as Steven Wu wrote, the question was raised if the >>>> same multi-version support strategy can be adopted across engines. Based on >>>> what Steven wrote, currently the Flink developer community's bandwidth >>>> makes supporting only a single Flink version (and focusing resources on >>>> developing new features on that version) the preferred choice. If so, then >>>> no multi-version support strategy for Flink is needed at this time. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:26 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> During the sync meeting, people talked about if and how we can have >>>>> the same version support model across engines like Flink and Spark. I can >>>>> provide some input from the Flink side. >>>>> >>>>> Flink only supports two minor versions. E.g., right now Flink 1.13 is >>>>> the latest released version. That means only Flink 1.12 and 1.13 are >>>>> supported. Feature changes or bug fixes will only be backported to 1.12 >>>>> and >>>>> 1.13, unless it is a serious bug (like security). With that context, >>>>> personally I like option 1 (with one actively supported Flink version in >>>>> master branch) for the iceberg-flink module. >>>>> >>>>> We discussed the idea of supporting multiple Flink versions via shm >>>>> layer and multiple modules. While it may be a little better to support >>>>> multiple Flink versions, I don't know if there is enough support and >>>>> resources from the community to pull it off. Also the ongoing maintenance >>>>> burden for each minor version release from Flink, which happens roughly >>>>> every 4 months. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:25 PM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Since you mentioned Hive, I chime in with what we do there. You might >>>>>> find it useful: >>>>>> - metastore module - only small differences - DynConstructor solves >>>>>> for us >>>>>> - mr module - some bigger differences, but still manageable for Hive >>>>>> 2-3. Need some new classes, but most of the code is reused - extra module >>>>>> for Hive 3. For Hive 4 we use a different repo as we moved to the Hive >>>>>> codebase. >>>>>> >>>>>> My thoughts based on the above experience: >>>>>> - Keeping Hive 4 and Hive 2-3 code in sync is a pain. We constantly >>>>>> have problems with backporting changes between repos and we are slacking >>>>>> behind which hurts both projects >>>>>> - Hive 2-3 model is working better by forcing us to keep the things >>>>>> in sync, but with serious differences in the Hive project it still >>>>>> doesn't >>>>>> seem like a viable option. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think the question is: How stable is the Spark code we are >>>>>> integrating to. If I is fairly stable then we are better off with a "one >>>>>> repo multiple modules" approach and we should consider the multirepo only >>>>>> if the differences become prohibitive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021, 02:21 Anton Okolnychyi, >>>>>> <aokolnyc...@apple.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Okay, looks like there is consensus around supporting multiple Spark >>>>>>> versions at the same time. There are folks who mentioned this on this >>>>>>> thread and there were folks who brought this up during the sync. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let’s think through Option 2 and 3 in more detail then. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Option 2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In Option 2, there will be a separate repo. I believe the master >>>>>>> branch will soon point to Spark 3.2 (the most recent supported version). >>>>>>> The main development will happen there and the artifact version will be >>>>>>> 0.1.0. I also suppose there will be 0.1.x-spark-2 and 0.1.x-spark-3.1 >>>>>>> branches where we will cherry-pick applicable changes. Once we are >>>>>>> ready to >>>>>>> release 0.1.0 Spark integration, we will create 0.1.x-spark-3.2 and cut >>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>> releases: Spark 2.4, Spark 3.1, Spark 3.2. After that, we will bump the >>>>>>> version in master to 0.2.0 and create new 0.2.x-spark-2 and >>>>>>> 0.2.x-spark-3.1 >>>>>>> branches for cherry-picks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess we will continue to shade everything in the new repo and >>>>>>> will have to release every time the core is released. We will do a >>>>>>> maintenance release for each supported Spark version whenever we cut a >>>>>>> new >>>>>>> maintenance Iceberg release or need to fix any bugs in the Spark >>>>>>> integration. >>>>>>> Under this model, we will probably need nightly snapshots (or on >>>>>>> each commit) for the core format and the Spark integration will depend >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> snapshots until we are ready to release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overall, I think this option gives us very simple builds and >>>>>>> provides best separation. It will keep the main repo clean. The main >>>>>>> downside is that we will have to split a Spark feature into two PRs: one >>>>>>> against the core and one against the Spark integration. Certain changes >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> core can also break the Spark integration too and will require >>>>>>> adaptations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ryan, I am not sure I fully understood the testing part. How will we >>>>>>> be able to test the Spark integration in the main repo if certain >>>>>>> changes >>>>>>> in core may break the Spark integration and require changes there? Will >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> try to prohibit such changes? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Option 3 (modified) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I get correctly, the modified Option 3 sounds very close to >>>>>>> the initially suggested approach by Imran but with code duplication >>>>>>> instead >>>>>>> of extra refactoring and introducing new common modules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jack, are you suggesting we test only a single Spark version at a >>>>>>> time? Or do we expect to test all versions? Will there be any difference >>>>>>> compared to just having a module per version? I did not fully >>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My worry with this approach is that our build will be very >>>>>>> complicated and we will still have a lot of Spark-related modules in the >>>>>>> main repo. Once people start using Flink and Hive more, will we have to >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> the same? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Anton >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16 Sep 2021, at 08:11, Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd support the option that Jack suggests if we can set a few >>>>>>> expectations for keeping it clean. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, I'd like to avoid refactoring code to share it across Spark >>>>>>> versions -- that introduces risk because we're relying on compiling >>>>>>> against >>>>>>> one version and running in another and both Spark and Scala change >>>>>>> rapidly. >>>>>>> A big benefit of options 1 and 2 is that we mostly focus on only one >>>>>>> Spark >>>>>>> version. I think we should duplicate code rather than spend time >>>>>>> refactoring to rely on binary compatibility. I propose we start each new >>>>>>> Spark version by copying the last one and updating it. And we should >>>>>>> build >>>>>>> just the latest supported version by default. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The drawback to having everything in a single repo is that we >>>>>>> wouldn't be able to cherry-pick changes across Spark versions/branches, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> I think Jack is right that having a single build is better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Second, we should make CI faster by running the Spark builds in >>>>>>> parallel. It sounds like this is what would happen anyway, with a >>>>>>> property >>>>>>> that selects the Spark version that you want to build against. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overall, this new suggestion sounds like a promising way forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ryan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 11:46 PM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think in Ryan's proposal we will create a ton of modules anyway, >>>>>>>> as Wing listed we are just using git branch as an additional >>>>>>>> dimension, but >>>>>>>> my understanding is that you will still have 1 core, 1 extension, 1 >>>>>>>> runtime >>>>>>>> artifact published for each Spark version in either approach. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In that case, this is just brainstorming, I wonder if we can >>>>>>>> explore a modified option 3 that flattens all the versions in each >>>>>>>> Spark >>>>>>>> branch in option 2 into master. The repository structure would look >>>>>>>> something like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> iceberg/api/... >>>>>>>> /bundled-guava/... >>>>>>>> /core/... >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> /spark/2.4/core/... >>>>>>>> /extension/... >>>>>>>> /runtime/... >>>>>>>> /3.1/core/... >>>>>>>> /extension/... >>>>>>>> /runtime/... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The gradle build script in the root is configured to build against >>>>>>>> the latest version of Spark by default, unless otherwise specified by >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> user. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Intellij can also be configured to only index files of specific >>>>>>>> versions based on the same config used in build. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In this way, I imagine the CI setup to be much easier to do things >>>>>>>> like testing version compatibility for a feature or running only a >>>>>>>> specific subset of Spark version builds based on the Spark version >>>>>>>> directories touched. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the biggest benefit is that we don't have the same difficulty >>>>>>>> as option 2 of developing a feature when it's both in core and Spark. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can then develop a mechanism to vote to stop support of certain >>>>>>>> versions, and archive the corresponding directory to avoid >>>>>>>> accumulating too >>>>>>>> many versions in the long term. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Jack Ye >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 4:17 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, I was thinking about CI integration between Iceberg Java >>>>>>>>> and Iceberg Spark, I just didn't mention it and I see how that's a big >>>>>>>>> thing to leave out! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would definitely want to test the projects together. One thing >>>>>>>>> we could do is have a nightly build like Russell suggests. I'm also >>>>>>>>> wondering if we could have some tighter integration where the Iceberg >>>>>>>>> Spark >>>>>>>>> build can be included in the Iceberg Java build using properties. >>>>>>>>> Maybe the >>>>>>>>> github action could checkout Iceberg, then checkout the Spark >>>>>>>>> integration's latest branch, and then run the gradle build with a >>>>>>>>> property >>>>>>>>> that makes Spark a subproject in the build. That way we can continue >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> have Spark CI run regularly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:08 PM Russell Spitzer < >>>>>>>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree that Option 2 is considerably more difficult for >>>>>>>>>> development when core API changes need to be picked up by the >>>>>>>>>> external >>>>>>>>>> Spark module. I also think a monthly release would probably still be >>>>>>>>>> prohibitive to actually implementing new features that appear in the >>>>>>>>>> API, I >>>>>>>>>> would hope we have a much faster process or maybe just have snapshot >>>>>>>>>> artifacts published nightly? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2021, at 4:46 PM, Wing Yew Poon < >>>>>>>>>> wyp...@cloudera.com.INVALID> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IIUC, Option 2 is to move the Spark support for Iceberg into a >>>>>>>>>> separate repo (subproject of Iceberg). Would we have branches such as >>>>>>>>>> 0.13-2.4, 0.13-3.0, 0.13-3.1, and 0.13-3.2? For features that can be >>>>>>>>>> supported in all versions or all Spark 3 versions, then we would >>>>>>>>>> need to >>>>>>>>>> commit the changes to all applicable branches. Basically we are >>>>>>>>>> trading >>>>>>>>>> more work to commit to multiple branches for simplified build and CI >>>>>>>>>> time per branch, which might be an acceptable trade-off. However, the >>>>>>>>>> biggest downside is that changes may need to be made in core Iceberg >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> well as in the engine (in this case Spark) support, and we need to >>>>>>>>>> wait for >>>>>>>>>> a release of core Iceberg to consume the changes in the subproject. >>>>>>>>>> In this >>>>>>>>>> case, maybe we should have a monthly release of core Iceberg (no >>>>>>>>>> matter how >>>>>>>>>> many changes go in, as long as it is non-zero) so that the >>>>>>>>>> subproject can >>>>>>>>>> consume changes fairly quickly? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:09 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Anton. I’m glad that we have the >>>>>>>>>>> set of potential solutions well defined. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like the next step is to decide whether we want to require >>>>>>>>>>> people to update Spark versions to pick up newer versions of >>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg. If we >>>>>>>>>>> choose to make people upgrade, then option 1 is clearly the best >>>>>>>>>>> choice. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don’t think that we should make updating Spark a requirement. >>>>>>>>>>> Many of the things that we’re working on are orthogonal to Spark >>>>>>>>>>> versions, >>>>>>>>>>> like table maintenance actions, secondary indexes, the 1.0 API, >>>>>>>>>>> views, ORC >>>>>>>>>>> delete files, new storage implementations, etc. Upgrading Spark is >>>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>> consuming and untrusted in my experience, so I think we would be >>>>>>>>>>> setting up >>>>>>>>>>> an unnecessary trade-off between spending lots of time to upgrade >>>>>>>>>>> Spark and >>>>>>>>>>> picking up new Iceberg features. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Another way of thinking about this is that if we went with >>>>>>>>>>> option 1, then we could port bug fixes into 0.12.x. But there are >>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>> things that wouldn’t fit this model, like adding a FileIO >>>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>> for ADLS. So some people in the community would have to maintain >>>>>>>>>>> branches >>>>>>>>>>> of newer Iceberg versions with older versions of Spark outside of >>>>>>>>>>> the main >>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg project — that defeats the purpose of simplifying things >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> option 1 because we would then have more people maintaining the >>>>>>>>>>> same 0.13.x >>>>>>>>>>> with Spark 3.1 branch. (This reminds me of the Spark community, >>>>>>>>>>> where we >>>>>>>>>>> wanted to release a 2.5 line with DSv2 backported, but the community >>>>>>>>>>> decided not to so we built similar 2.4+DSv2 branches at Netflix, >>>>>>>>>>> Tencent, >>>>>>>>>>> Apple, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If the community is going to do the work anyway — and I think >>>>>>>>>>> some of us would — we should make it possible to share that work. >>>>>>>>>>> That’s >>>>>>>>>>> why I don’t think that we should go with option 1. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If we don’t go with option 1, then the choice is how to maintain >>>>>>>>>>> multiple Spark versions. I think that the way we’re doing it right >>>>>>>>>>> now is >>>>>>>>>>> not something we want to continue. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Using multiple modules (option 3) is concerning to me because of >>>>>>>>>>> the changes in Spark. We currently structure the library to share >>>>>>>>>>> as much >>>>>>>>>>> code as possible. But that means compiling against different Spark >>>>>>>>>>> versions >>>>>>>>>>> and relying on binary compatibility and reflection in some cases. >>>>>>>>>>> To me, >>>>>>>>>>> this seems unmaintainable in the long run because it requires >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring >>>>>>>>>>> common classes and spending a lot of time deduplicating code. It >>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>> creates a ton of modules, at least one common module, then a module >>>>>>>>>>> per >>>>>>>>>>> version, then an extensions module per version, and finally a >>>>>>>>>>> runtime >>>>>>>>>>> module per version. That’s 3 modules per Spark version, plus any >>>>>>>>>>> new common >>>>>>>>>>> modules. And each module needs to be tested, which is making our CI >>>>>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>>>>> really long time. We also don’t support multiple Scala versions, >>>>>>>>>>> which is >>>>>>>>>>> another gap that will require even more modules and tests. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I like option 2 because it would allow us to compile against a >>>>>>>>>>> single version of Spark (which will be much more reliable). It >>>>>>>>>>> would give >>>>>>>>>>> us an opportunity to support different Scala versions. It avoids >>>>>>>>>>> the need >>>>>>>>>>> to refactor to share code and allows people to focus on a single >>>>>>>>>>> version of >>>>>>>>>>> Spark, while also creating a way for people to maintain and update >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> older versions with newer Iceberg releases. I don’t think that this >>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> slow down development. I think it would actually speed it up >>>>>>>>>>> because we’d >>>>>>>>>>> be spending less time trying to make multiple versions work in the >>>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>> build. And anyone in favor of option 1 would basically get option >>>>>>>>>>> 1: you >>>>>>>>>>> don’t have to care about branches for older Spark versions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jack makes a good point about wanting to keep code in a single >>>>>>>>>>> repository, but I think that the need to manage more version >>>>>>>>>>> combinations >>>>>>>>>>> overrides this concern. It’s easier to make this decision in python >>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>> we’re not trying to depend on two projects that change relatively >>>>>>>>>>> quickly. >>>>>>>>>>> We’re just trying to build a library. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ryan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:58 AM OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Anton. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has great pros/cons to support their preferences. >>>>>>>>>>>> Before giving my preference, let me raise one question: what's >>>>>>>>>>>> the top >>>>>>>>>>>> priority thing for apache iceberg project at this point in time ? >>>>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>>>> question will help us to answer the following question: Should we >>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>> more engine versions more robustly or be a bit more aggressive and >>>>>>>>>>>> concentrate on getting the new features that users need most in >>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>> keep the project more competitive ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If people watch the apache iceberg project and check the issues >>>>>>>>>>>> & PR frequently, I guess more than 90% people will answer the >>>>>>>>>>>> priority >>>>>>>>>>>> question: There is no doubt for making the whole v2 story to be >>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready. The current roadmap discussion also proofs the >>>>>>>>>>>> thing : >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/x/thread.html/r84e80216c259c81f824c6971504c321cd8c785774c489d52d4fc123f@%3Cdev.iceberg.apache.org%3E >>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In order to ensure the highest priority at this point in time, >>>>>>>>>>>> I will prefer option-1 to reduce the cost of engine maintenance, >>>>>>>>>>>> so as to >>>>>>>>>>>> free up resources to make v2 production-ready. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:00 PM Saisai Shao < >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.sai.s...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From Dev's point, it has less burden to always support the >>>>>>>>>>>>> latest version of Spark (for example). But from user's point, >>>>>>>>>>>>> especially for us who maintain Spark internally, it is not easy >>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Spark version for the first time (since we have many >>>>>>>>>>>>> customizations >>>>>>>>>>>>> internally), and we're still promoting to upgrade to 3.1.2. If the >>>>>>>>>>>>> community ditches the support of old version of Spark3, users >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain it themselves unavoidably. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm inclined to make this support in community, not by >>>>>>>>>>>>> users themselves, as for Option 2 or 3, I'm fine with either. And >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> relieve the burden, we could support limited versions of Spark >>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 versions). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just my two cents. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Saisai >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> 于2021年9月15日周三 下午1:35写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wing Yew, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think 2.4 is a different story, we will continue to support >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark 2.4, but as you can see it will continue to have very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities comparing to Spark 3. I believe we discussed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about option 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we were doing Spark 3.0 to 3.1 upgrade. Recently we are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same issue for Flink 1.11, 1.12 and 1.13 as well. I feel we need >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent strategy around this, let's take this chance to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community guideline for all future engine versions, especially >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Spark, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink and Hive that are in the same repository. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can totally understand your point of view Wing, in fact, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaking from the perspective of AWS EMR, we have to support >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over 40 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the software because there are people who are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Spark >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4, believe it or not. After all, keep backporting changes will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> liability not only on the user side, but also on the service >>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider side, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I believe it's not a bad practice to push for user upgrade, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make the life of both parties easier in the end. New feature is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the best incentives to promote an upgrade on user side. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the biggest issue of option 3 is about its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scalability, because we will have an unbounded list of packages >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to add and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compile in the future, and we probably cannot drop support of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that package >>>>>>>>>>>>>> once created. If we go with option 1, I think we can still >>>>>>>>>>>>>> publish a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch versions for old Iceberg releases, and committers can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> control the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of patch versions to guard people from abusing the power >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patching. I see this as a consistent strategy also for Flink and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive. With >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this strategy, we can truly have a compatibility matrix for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engine versions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> against Iceberg versions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jack >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:00 PM Wing Yew Poon < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wyp...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand and sympathize with the desire to use new DSv2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features in Spark 3.2. I agree that Option 1 is the easiest for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I don't think it considers the interests of users. I do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most users will upgrade to Spark 3.2 as soon as it is released. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "minor version" upgrade in name from 3.1 (or from 3.0), but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that it is not a minor upgrade. There are a lot of changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from 3.0 to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1 and from 3.1 to 3.2. I think there are even a lot of users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark 2.4 and not even on Spark 3 yet. Do we also plan to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark 2.4? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the folks who have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoken out in favor of Option 1 all work for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization, don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they? And they don't have a problem with making their users, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all internal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply upgrade to Spark 3.2, do they? (Or they are already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal fork that is close to 3.2.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I work for an organization with customers running different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of Spark. It is true that we can backport new features >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to older >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions if we wanted to. I suppose the people contributing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg work >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some organization or other that either use Iceberg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house, or provide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software (possibly in the form of a service) to customers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either way, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the organizations have the ability to backport features and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal versions. Are there any users out there who simply use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg and depend on the community version? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There may be features that are broadly useful that do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depend on Spark 3.2. Is it worth supporting them on Spark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0/3.1 (and even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.4)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not in favor of Option 2. I do not oppose Option 1, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would consider Option 3 too. Anton, you said 5 modules are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required; what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the modules you're thinking of? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Wing Yew >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:38 PM Yufei Gu < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Option 1 sounds good to me. Here are my reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Both 2 and 3 will slow down the development. Considering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the limited resources in the open source community, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upsides of option 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 3 are probably not worthy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Both 2 and 3 assume the use cases may not exist. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard to predict anything, but even if these use cases are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legit, users can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still get the new feature by backporting it to an older >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version in case of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrading to a newer version isn't an option. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yufei >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `This is not a contribution` >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:54 PM Anton Okolnychyi < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aokolnyc...@apple.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To sum up what we have so far: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Option 1 (support just the most recent minor Spark 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version)* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The easiest option for us devs, forces the user to upgrade >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the most recent minor Spark version to consume any new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Option 2 (a separate project under Iceberg)* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can support as many Spark versions as needed and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase is still separate as we can use separate branches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Impossible to consume any unreleased changes in core, may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow down the development. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Option 3 (separate modules for Spark 3.1/3.2)* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce more modules in the same project. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can consume unreleased changes but it will required at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least 5 modules to support 2.4, 3.1 and 3.2, making the build >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and testing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any users for whom upgrading the minor Spark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version (e3.1 to 3.2) to consume new features is a blocker? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We follow Option 1 internally at the moment but I would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like to hear what other people think/need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Anton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2021, at 09:44, Russell Spitzer < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should go for option 1. I already am not a big >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fan of having runtime errors for unsupported things based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't think minor version upgrades are a large issue for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially not looking forward to supporting interfaces that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only exist in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark 3.2 in a multiple Spark version support future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 11:32 AM, Anton Okolnychyi < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aokolnyc...@apple.com.INVALID> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, is option 2 a viable option? We discussed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separating the python module outside of the project a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks ago, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to not do that because it's beneficial for code cross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more intuitive for new developers to see everything in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same repository. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would expect the same argument to also hold here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s exactly the concern I have about Option 2 at this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Overall I would personally prefer us to not support all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the minor versions, but instead support maybe just 2-3 latest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when it gets a bit complicated. If we want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support both Spark 3.1 and Spark 3.2 with a single module, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to compile against 3.1. The problem is that we rely on DSv2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively developed. 3.2 and 3.1 have substantial differences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On top of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, we have our extensions that are extremely low-level and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may break not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only between minor versions but also between patch releases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> f there are some features requiring a newer version, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to move that newer version in master. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internally, we don’t deliver new features to older Spark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions as it requires a lot of effort to port things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don’t >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it is too bad to require users to upgrade if they want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the same time, there are valid concerns with this approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned during the sync. For example, certain new features >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work fine with older Spark versions. I generally agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not supporting recent versions is not ideal. However, I want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to find a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> balance between the complexity on our side and ease of use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the users. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ideally, supporting a few recent versions would be sufficient >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but our Spark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration is too low-level to do that with a single module. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13 Sep 2021, at 20:53, Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, is option 2 a viable option? We discussed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separating the python module outside of the project a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks ago, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to not do that because it's beneficial for code cross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more intuitive for new developers to see everything in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same repository. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would expect the same argument to also hold here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Overall I would personally prefer us to not support all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the minor versions, but instead support maybe just 2-3 latest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major version. This avoids the problem that some users are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwilling to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move to a newer version and keep patching old Spark version >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are some features requiring a newer version, it makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense to move >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that newer version in master. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, because currently Spark is considered the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most feature-complete reference implementation compared to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engines, I think we should not add artificial barriers that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would slow down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its development speed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So my thinking is closer to option 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Ye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:39 PM Anton Okolnychyi < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aokolnyc...@apple.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to discuss our Spark version support strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far, we have tried to support both 3.0 and 3.1. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great to support older versions but because we compile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against 3.0, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot use any Spark features that are offered in newer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark 3.2 is just around the corner and it brings a lot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of important features such dynamic filtering for v2 tables, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution and ordering for writes, etc. These features >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are too important >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ignore them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from that, I have an end-to-end prototype for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge-on-read with Spark that actually leverages some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2 features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll be implementing all new Spark DSv2 APIs for us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internally and would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> love to share that with the rest of the community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two options to move forward: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Option 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Migrate to Spark 3.2 in master, maintain 0.12 for a while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by releasing minor versions with bug fixes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: almost no changes to the build configuration, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra work on our side as just a single Spark version is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: some new features that we will be adding to master >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could also work with older Spark versions but all 0.12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases will only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain bug fixes. Therefore, users will be forced to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrate to Spark 3.2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to consume any new Spark or format features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Option 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Move our Spark integration into a separate project and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce branches for 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: decouples the format version from Spark, we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support as many Spark versions as needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: more work initially to set everything up, more work >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to release, will need a new release of the core format to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consume any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes in the Spark integration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Overall, I think option 2 seems better for the user but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my main worry is that we will have to release the format >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more frequently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is a good thing but requires more work and time) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark development may be slower. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’d love to hear what everybody thinks about this matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>>>>>>>> Tabular >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>>>>>> Tabular >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>>>> Tabular >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Ryan Blue Tabular
