Likewise I said, I'm concluding the VOTE since we ensure the criteria (3 +1 binding, 1 -1 binding, and also +1s from non-binding).
I don't consider -1 as a veto as I explained, as we should have multiple -1s if we go for VOTE with the current codebase. (+1 in this proposal is effectively -1 in another proposal.) The vote followed the Apache Voting Process <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> with the type of "package release" (which we tend to use in dev@ for VOTE). I guess it could have also done with "procedural issues" which is less strict, but then this fulfills both types of votes which should be OK. The current codebase is "accidentally" representing another proposal and it is never intended. I don't find the way I can -1 to the current codebase, and make a different change neither bound to any proposal to be fair. I don't want to block the release because of the above. So, let's change the current codebase the way we discussed and voted here. Reverting this decision should require another VOTE. Thanks to everyone who voted! On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 4:54 PM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks to everyone who participated and voted! > > Now I can technically conclude the VOTE, but I'm willing to wait till US > daytime tomorrow, to give some time for Dongjoon to revisit this. > > I'll conclude the vote around 6PM PST tomorrow regardless of his vote. > It's ideal to see us have no -1, but having one -1 doesn't block this > vote and we can move forward. > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 4:42 PM Yang Jie <yangji...@apache.org> wrote: > >> forgot to mention in my last reply, my stance is +1 >> >> Jie Yang >> >> On 2025/03/13 07:08:12 Russell Jurney wrote: >> > Sure, +1 non-binding. >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 11:18 PM Jungtaek Lim < >> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Russell, >> > > >> > > Of course, we hear people' voices who aren't having binding votes as >> well. >> > > Personally I think it's more important than committers/PMC members' >> VOTE >> > > this time since we can be biased and be far from user experience. >> > > >> > > Could you please explicitly cast your vote, like +1 (non-binding)? You >> > > seem to agree with the proposal. Thanks! >> > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 3:15 PM Russell Jurney < >> russell.jur...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> I'm just a lurker and aspiring contributor, but as a Spark user >> upgrading >> > >> twice is very confusing and would cause many or most users to fail to >> > >> upgrade successfully to Spark 4 on a first go. That seems like a >> very bad >> > >> user experience. I thought it was worthwhile stating this out loud. >> > >> >> > >> Russell >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 11:05 PM Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> 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". >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> In the history of Apache Spark, have we ever required users to >> upgrade >> > >>> to the next maintenance release before moving to a new feature or >> major >> > >>> release? >> > >>> >> > >>> Xiao >> > >>> >> > >>> Adam Binford <adam...@gmail.com> 于2025年3月11日周二 09:08写道： >> > >>> >> > >>>> +1 (non-binding) >> > >>>> >> > >>>> It's a pretty in the weeds issue with how Structured Streaming >> works >> > >>>> under the hood that's kinda hard to understand if you're not >> familiar with >> > >>>> it. The migration logic doesn't mean users can still use the old >> config, >> > >>>> it's purely behind the scenes to fix checkpoint metadata in >> streams created >> > >>>> in 3.5.4. The 5 lines of code it takes to address a weird edge >> case for >> > >>>> certain users that's already gone from master shouldn't be a huge >> deal. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 1:43 AM Yang Jie <yangji...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> 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 >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> -- >> > >>>> Adam Binford >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >>
