+1 for removing Spark 3.1 and deprecating Spark 3.2 On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Hi Anton, > > imho for 1.4.0, we can deprecate/remove Spark 3.1 support. As it's > major release, we can remove old version support. Spark 3.1 users can > still use Iceberg 1.3.x. > > That's why I proposed a LTS policy for our users, I will come with a > proposal about that. > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:53 PM Anton Okolnychyi > <aokolnyc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Just checking in to see how we feel about Spark 3.1 now. We support 5 > different Spark versions at this point: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. Any > thoughts on making Iceberg 1.4 the last release with Spark 3.1? > > > > On 2023/04/27 04:58:06 Walaa Eldin Moustafa wrote: > > > Yes, that sounds like a good compromise. Initially I was looking at > > > deprecation guidelines in [1], but I see you are referring to [2]. > > > > > > [1] https://iceberg.apache.org/contribute/ > > > [2] > > > > https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#current-engine-version-lifecycle-status > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 8:10 AM Anton Okolnychyi > > > <aokolnyc...@apple.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Got it. Given that quite a bit of folks still use 3.1, I don’t think > we > > > > would remove it unless the branch becomes inactive. Marking it as > > > > deprecated would allow us to indicate that it may not be as > up-to-date and > > > > complete as other versions and some performance enhancements or even > minor > > > > bug fixes may not be there. That would solve one of the concerns I > raised > > > > earlier. We should discourage users from onboarding new use cases on > 3.1. > > > > > > > > I believe our doc summarizes the message pretty well. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. *Deprecated*: an engine version is no longer actively > maintained. > > > > People who are still interested in the version can backport any > necessary > > > > feature or bug fix from newer versions, but the community will > not spend > > > > effort in achieving feature parity. Iceberg recommends users to > move > > > > towards a newer version. Contributions to a deprecated version is > expected > > > > to diminish over time, so that eventually no change is added to a > > > > deprecated version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#current-engine-version-lifecycle-status > > > > > > > > Let me know if that seems like a good compromise. > > > > > > > > - Anton > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2023, at 8:01 PM, Walaa Eldin Moustafa < > wa.moust...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > To elaborate on LinkedIn's use case: > > > > > > > > * LinkedIn maintains its own fork, but we would like to keep it as > close > > > > to upstream as possible. > > > > * +1 to Manu on migrations in large companies could take well beyond > 18 > > > > months, and it is unlikely to migrate/upgrade more frequently. > > > > * One important use case for the Spark 3.1 module is not necessarily > > > > fixing issues in the module itself, but fixing issues in other core > > > > modules, and having a release that contains core fixes as well as > Spark 3.1. > > > > * That said, in the last 6 months, there have been 29 commits to > Spark 3.1 > > > > module, 50 commits to Spark 3.2 module, and 90 to Spark 3.3, in the > Iceberg > > > > master branch. It seems that Spark 3.1 is reasonably active. > > > > > > > > What does marking as deprecated entail in terms of deleting the code? > > > > Would the guideline be to use 3.2 or 3.3 as an alternative? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Walaa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 12:08 PM Anton Okolnychyi < > > > > aokolnyc...@apple.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Ok, seems like we are in agreement to deprecate 3.1. I’ll fire a PR > > > >> shortly. > > > >> > > > >> Does anyone want to go through changes in 3.3 and 3.2 and find what > we > > > >> missed to cherry-pick so that we have that list in one place (e.g. > create > > > >> an issue)? > > > >> > > > >> Any thoughts on how to mark changes as candidates for > cherry-picking? > > > >> Creating an issue? > > > >> > > > >> - Anton > > > >> > > > >> On Apr 24, 2023, at 10:01 AM, Edgar Rodriguez < > > > >> edgar.rodrig...@airbnb.com.INVALID> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for the discussion. Similarly to Manu, we're in Spark 3.1.1 > and > > > >> Iceberg 1.1.0 - we backport Spark 3.1.1 fixes internally as well. > It's a > > > >> bit more complicated to move fast on Spark versions internally, > mainly due > > > >> to the number of scala customers that we have. > > > >> > > > >> I understand maintaining yet another Spark version is burdensome so > > > >> I'm +1 on marking 3.1 deprecated, and I'd be happy to contribute on > > > >> backports if needed on a community maintained branch, we'd just > need to tag > > > >> changes that may need a backport. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 4:40 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Thank you for stepping up and offering to help, Manu. I'm glad that > > > >>> you're willing to help with backports. > > > >>> > > > >>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 2:05 AM Manu Zhang < > owenzhang1...@gmail.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> You would just end up backporting twice. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> That's why I said a community maintained branch benefits us, > saving one > > > >>>> backport. Note the first backport is more difficult, sometimes > requiring > > > >>>> rewriting the PR since there would be API differences between > Spark > > > >>>> versions. > > > >>>> The second backport will be much easier if we focus on bug fixes. > > > >>>> Meanwhile, it's also easier for us to upgrade to Iceberg 1.2+ if > 3.1 > > > >>>> support is still available although deprecated. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Ryan Blue > > > >>> Tabular > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Edgar R > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
