I'm not really in favor of linking and annotating as that just makes things more complicated and still is essentially forking just with more steps. If we just track our annotations / modifications to a single commit/version then we have the same issue again but now you have to go to multiple sources to get the actual Spec. *In addition, our very copy of the Spec is going to require new types which don't exist in the Spark Spec which necessarily means diverging. *We will need to take up new primitive id's (as noted in my first email)
The other issue I have is I don't think the Spark Spec is really going through a thorough review process from all members of the Spark community, I believe it probably should have gone through the SPIP but instead seems to have been merged without broad community involvement. The only way to truly avoid diverging is to only have a single copy of the spec, in our previous discussions the vast majority of Apache Iceberg community want it to exist here. On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:19 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm really excited about the introduction of variant type to Iceberg, but > I want to raise concerns about forking the spec. > > I feel like preemptively forking would create the situation where we end > up diverging because there's little reason to work with both communities to > evolve in a way that benefits everyone. > > I would much rather point to a specific version of the spec and annotate > any variance in Iceberg's handling. This would allow us to continue > without dividing the communities. > > If at any point there are irreconcilable differences, I would support > forking, but I don't feel like that should be the initial step. > > No one is excited about the possibility that the physical representations > end up diverging, but it feels like we're setting ourselves up for that > exact scenario. > > -Dan > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 6:54 AM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 to what's already being said here. It is good to copy the spec to >> Iceberg and add context that's specific to Iceberg, but at the same time, >> we should maintain compatibility. >> >> Kind regards, >> Fokko >> >> Op wo 14 aug 2024 om 15:30 schreef Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com>: >> >>> +1 to copy the spec into our repository. I think the best way to keep >>> compatibility is building integration tests. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Manu >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:27 PM Péter Váry <peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Russell and Aihua for pushing Variant support! >>>> >>>> Given the differences between the supported types and the lack of >>>> interest from the other project, I think it is reasonable to duplicate the >>>> specification to our repository. >>>> I would give very strong emphasis on sticking to the Spark spec as much >>>> as possible, to keep compatibility as much as possible. Maybe even revert >>>> to a shared specification if the situation changes. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> Aihua Xu <aihu...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2024. aug. 13., K, >>>> 19:52): >>>> >>>>> Thanks Russell for bringing this up. >>>>> >>>>> This is the main blocker to move forward with the Variant support in >>>>> Iceberg and hopefully we can have a consensus. To me, I also feel it makes >>>>> more sense to move the spec into Iceberg rather than Spark engine owns it >>>>> and we try to keep it compatible with Spark spec. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Aihua >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 6:50 PM Russell Spitzer < >>>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Y’all, >>>>>> >>>>>> We’ve hit a bit of a roadblock with the Variant Proposal, while we >>>>>> were hoping to move the Variant and Shredding specifications from Spark >>>>>> into Iceberg there doesn’t seem to be a lot of interest in that. >>>>>> Unfortunately, I think we have a number of issues with just linking to >>>>>> the >>>>>> Spark project directly from within Iceberg and *I believe we need to >>>>>> copy the specifications into our repository*. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a few reasons why i think this is necessary >>>>>> >>>>>> First, we have a divergence of types already. The Spark Specification >>>>>> already includes types which Iceberg has no definition for (19, 20 >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/common/variant/README.md#encoding-types> >>>>>> - Interval Types) and Iceberg already has a type which is not included >>>>>> within the Spark Specification (Time) and will soon have more with >>>>>> TimestampNS, and Geo. >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, We would like to make sure that Spark is not a hard >>>>>> dependency for other engines. We are working with several implementers of >>>>>> the Iceberg spec and it has previously been agreed that it would be best >>>>>> if >>>>>> the source of truth for Variant existed in an engine and file format >>>>>> neutral location. The Iceberg project has a good open model of governance >>>>>> and, as we have seen so far discussing Variant >>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/xcyytoypgplfr74klg1z2rgjo6k5b0sq>, >>>>>> open and active collaboration. This would also help as we can strictly >>>>>> version our changes in-line with the rest of the Iceberg spec. >>>>>> >>>>>> Third, The Shredding spec is not quite finished and requires some >>>>>> group analysis and discussion before we commit it. I think again the >>>>>> Iceberg community is probably the right place for this to happen as we >>>>>> have >>>>>> already started discussions here on these topics. >>>>>> >>>>>> For these reasons I think we should go with a direct copy of the >>>>>> existing specification from the Spark Project and move ahead with our >>>>>> discussions and modifications within Iceberg. That said, *I do not >>>>>> want to diverge if possible from the Spark proposal*. For example, >>>>>> although we do not use the Interval types above, I think we should >>>>>> not reuse those type ids within our spec. Iceberg's Variant Spec >>>>>> types 19 and 20 would remain unused along with any other types we think >>>>>> are >>>>>> not applicable. We should strive whenever possible to allow for >>>>>> compatibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the interest of moving forward with this proposal I am hoping to >>>>>> see if anyone in the community objects to this plan going forward or has >>>>>> a >>>>>> better alternative. >>>>>> >>>>>> As always I am thankful for your time and am eager to hear back from >>>>>> everyone, >>>>>> Russ >>>>>> >>>>>>
