To Sean, you're right, I'm very sorry.
>From the perspective of compatibility and migratability, I think we should >migrate this logic to 4.0.0 and keep it in the codebase for a longer time (or >permanently), because we can't predict which version users of 3.5.4 will >choose next. I don't want to discuss the so-called vendor issue. I withdraw my previous -1. Jie Yang. On 2025/03/11 04:42:25 Wenchen Fan wrote: > Guys, let’s be honest about what we’re discussing here. > > If this is a migration issue, why would we even need a vote? We’ve been > consistently adding configurations to restore legacy behavior instead of > removing them because we understand the challenges of upgrading Spark > versions. Our goal has always been to make upgrades easier, even if it > means carrying some technical debt. I don’t think we want to change that > culture now. > > If the concern is about vendor names appearing in the codebase, then why is > it a big deal this time when vendor names are already present elsewhere? If > we’ve failed to follow a policy, let’s correct it, but can someone point to > the specific policy we’re violating? > > If the vote is about adding migration logic to ease the upgrade from 3.5.4 > to 4.0.0, then +1, why not? > > Thanks, > Wenchen > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:49 PM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Well said, Sean. Sorry I made you keep around here since it might not be > > clearly stated. My bad. > > > > Yang, how could we ever tolerate the fact there are "other" occurrences of > > vendor names in the codebase? Please go and search "databricks" in the > > codebase and be surprised. > > > > If we believe that having vendor names in the codebase will increase > > the occurrence of making mistakes, why didn't we have a discussion thread > > earlier to remove all occurrences altogether? This is super tricky because > > I can even start to argue we have "Apple" as a vendor name in Apache Spark > > codebase. I'm not saying we use "apple" in the test data. See > > `isMacOnAppleSilicon` in Utils. Is it unavoidable? No, `isMacOnMSeries` or > > `isMacOnSilicon` is enough. > > > > We really need to draw a line where we disallow vendor names on it - if > > it's the entire codebase, I don't really think it is realistic. > > > > This was really a mistake, and it was definitely not from referring to the > > existing codebase. Not having a vendor name does not change anything on the > > chance of encountering this issue again. If we really care, we should think > > about style checking, which is the only viable way to catch the mistake. > > Again, I'd argue we have to have a bunch of vendor names in that style > > check, not just the problematic vendor name. > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:17 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Doesn't the migration code 'clear' the debt? > >> The proposal is not to continue to support the config. > >> I feel like people are not quite understanding the change, and objecting > >> to something that doesn't exist. > >> It's a shame, as this seems like something not even worth discussing. I > >> don't know why this triggered this much discussion. We have kept deprecated > >> methods without blinking, which is in comparison much bigger. > >> Can we maybe ask you review the actual change in question? > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 10:02 PM Yang Jie <yangji...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> -1 > >>> Remove migration logic of incorrect `spark.databricks.*` configuration > >>> in Spark 4.0.0 because I think this configuration was initially introduced > >>> accidentally in Spark 3.5.4, lacking a clear design intent. Although the > >>> immediate maintenance cost of retaining this configuration currently seems > >>> limited, as subsequent versions iterate and user habits form, it may lead > >>> to the continuous accumulation of technical debt. When users come to view > >>> this configuration as one that can be relied on long-term, future removal > >>> may face greater resistance from users and could potentially become an > >>> entrenched and redundant configuration in the codebase. Therefore, > >>> promptly > >>> correcting this historically accidental configuration not only maintains > >>> the normativity of the Spark configuration system but also prevents > >>> unintended configurations from becoming de facto standards, thereby > >>> reducing long-term maintenance risks. > >>> > >>> Jie Yang > >>> > >>> On 2025/03/10 14:52:52 Dongjoon Hyun wrote: > >>> > -1 because there exists a feasible migration path for Apache Spark > >>> 3.5.4 via Apache Spark 3.5.5. > >>> > > >>> > It's obvious that this Databricks' mistake already causes a huge > >>> communication cost in the Apache Spark community and is suggesting a > >>> burden > >>> to enforce us to handle at least two more PRs at 4.0.0 and 4.1.0. > >>> > > >>> > Given that, I don't think > >>> > - This is an inevitable or > >>> > - This is 0 cost > >>> > > >>> > Dongjoon. > >>> > > >>> > On 2025/03/10 12:46:16 Jungtaek Lim wrote: > >>> > > Starting from my +1 (non-binding). > >>> > > > >>> > > In addition, I propose to retain migration logic till Spark 4.1.x and > >>> > > remove it in Spark 4.2.0. > >>> > > > >>> > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 9:44 PM Jungtaek Lim < > >>> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi dev, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Please vote to retain migration logic of incorrect > >>> `spark.databricks.*` > >>> > > > configuration in Spark 4.0.x. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > - DISCUSSION: > >>> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/xzk9729lsmo397crdtk14f74g8cyv4sr > >>> > > > ([DISCUSS] Handling spark.databricks.* config being exposed in > >>> 3.5.4 in > >>> > > > Spark 4.0.0+) > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Specifically, please review this post > >>> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/xtq1kjhsl4ohfon78z3wld2hmfm78t9k > >>> which > >>> > > > explains pros and cons about the proposal - proposal is about > >>> "Option 1". > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Simply speaking, this vote is to allow streaming queries which had > >>> been > >>> > > > ever run in Spark 3.5.4 to be upgraded with Spark 4.0.x, "without > >>> having to > >>> > > > be upgraded with Spark 3.5.5+ in prior". If the vote passes, we > >>> will help > >>> > > > users to have a smooth upgrade from Spark 3.5.4 to Spark 4.0.x, > >>> which would > >>> > > > be almost 1 year. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > The (only) cons in this option is having to retain the incorrect > >>> > > > configuration name as "string" in the codebase a bit longer. The > >>> code > >>> > > > complexity of migration logic is arguably trivial. (link > >>> > > > < > >>> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/4231d58245251a34ae80a38ea4bbf7d720caa439/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/streaming/OffsetSeq.scala#L174-L183 > >>> > > >>> > > > ) > >>> > > > > >>> > > > This VOTE is for Spark 4.0.x, but if someone supports including > >>> migration > >>> > > > logic to be longer than Spark 4.0.x, please cast +1 here and leave > >>> the > >>> > > > desired last minor version of Spark to retain this migration logic. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority +1 > >>> PMC > >>> > > > votes are cast, with a minimum of 3 +1 votes. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > [ ] +1 Retain migration logic of incorrect `spark.databricks.*` > >>> > > > configuration in Spark 4.0.x > >>> > > > [ ] -1 Remove migration logic of incorrect `spark.databricks.*` > >>> > > > configuration in Spark 4.0.0 because... > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks! > >>> > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
