But can you please explain how we can be placed to be a fair situation? Let's say, assume we have the migration code in the current codebase. Dongjoon will never be able to remove the code, no?
There are only two choices and I believe the codebase as it is is "accidentally" following his proposal. I am looking forward to seeing your resolution on this. On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:43 AM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> wrote: > This vote has not passed. > > The proposed code change has been vetoed by a qualified voter. The > validity of that veto has been called into question since "the voter > must provide with the veto a technical justification showing why the > change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects > performance, etc. )." It has been less than 24 hours since Dongjoon's > veto was called into question. He should be given a chance to explain > why there is technical justification for it. > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 7:21 PM Jungtaek Lim > <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The vote passes with 7 +1s (3 binding +1s) and 1 -1s (1 binding -1s). > > Thanks to all who helped with the vote! > > > > I'm going to make a code change in branch-4.0 quickly so that we don't > have to trigger another RC for Spark 4.0.0 just because of this. > > > > (* = binding) > > +1: > > - Sean R. Owen * > > - Jungtaek Lim > > - Nicholas Chammas > > - Wenchen Fan * > > - Adam Binford > > - Russell Jurney > > - Yang Jie * > > > > -1: > > - Dongjoon Hyun * > > > > Thanks, > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >
