Hi Dongjoon, I don't think I am confused at all.
If you say you are going to fail RC3 and prepare RC4, then I expect you to do that. I don't expect you to backpadel and go with RC3 instead because you have changed your mind. Why don't you discuss that first? I would also like to know what the criteria for release blocker are. IMO driver crashing issues should be in that category; those actively hurt our brand... Yes, while my initial PR was open for a couple of days, there are a couple of reasons why I don't think that argument flies: - I am operating under the assumption that a new RC will be cut, and that I have time to finish it. - The time period you mention falls on the weekend. I generally try to be respectful of other peoples' time off, and that means I will not/I should not be chasing people for reviews. Even if you are out of patience and decide to take executive action as a release manager, then I'd still expect you to actually review the PR. If you would have done that you would have noticed that there are a couple of TBDs <https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/c36b7e58d0422a13228252657e4cff26a762a228> in the description, and if you would have looked closer you might have noticed that tests were missing checks. I am actually not annoyed about that, it happens to all of us, I am annoyed that when I call this out and open a follow-up, that you reverse course without telling me or anyone else. Lastly, since you have decided to call me out about the unfinished state of my work, let me remind you that you are the one who created that situation in the first place. I genuinely hope that we can do this better next time. Kind regards, Herman On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 9:32 PM Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Szehon > > From my perspective, we got lots of discussion over 3 months. I also want > to mentioned that the last open one has been discussed over two weeks > specifically and we didn't get any agreement in the community. > > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/52225 (Closed, 9/4 ~ 9/16) > SPARK-53482 MERGE INTO support nested case where source has less fields > than target > > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/52347 (Merged, 9/16 ~ 10/30) > SPARK-53482 MERGE INTO support for when source has less nested field than > target > > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53229 (Merged after 1 weeks: 11/26 ~ > 11/30) > SPARK-54525 Disable nested struct coercion in MERGE INTO under a config > > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53360 (Opened for 2 weeks: 12/6 ~ > Now) > SPARK-54621 Merge Into Update Set * preserve nested fields if > coerceNestedTypes is enabled > > Since Apache Spark 4.1.0 is shipped already, further discussion will > happen for Apache Spark 4.2.0 and 4.1.1. You have my all attentions for > your last night decision for next releases. > > Best regards, > Dongjoon. > > On 2025/12/16 18:29:52 Szehon Ho wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We also did not get a chance to respond. > > > > Re: Anton's comment above, due to > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53360 > > being blocked yesterday for Spark 4.1, we were chatting last night about > > the course of action. We would be changing the fundamental behavior of > the > > new feature, so either we are thinking to ship with the right behavior > that > > does not have data loss for the extra nested fields in target, or if > that's > > blocked then it's important to torpedo the feature (forcibly set the flag > > to false and do not allow the user to enable the feature). It would not > > make sense for the users of this feature (it's a heavily-asked one for > > Apache Iceberg) to evaluate the behavior in Spark 4.1, if it may lead > > to data loss and if we know it will completely change. > > > > Thanks > > Szehon > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:17 AM Mark Hamstra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On a little higher level, not restricted to just this issue/PR, there > > > is a distinct difference between "if there is no regression, then we > > > can release without fixing the issue" and "if there is no regression, > > > then we must release without fixing the issue". I don't believe that > > > the latter has ever been established as agreed upon policy in the > > > Spark project. I also don't believe that it is a good policy: there > > > are issues worth taking the time to fix (or at least carefully > > > discuss) even if they are not regressions. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 5:54 AM Herman van Hovell via dev > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dongjoon, > > > > > > > > I have a couple of problems with this course of action: > > > > > > > > You seem to be favoring speed over quality here. Even if my vote were > > > erroneous, you should give me more than two hours to respond. This is a > > > global community, not everyone is awake at the same time. As far as I > know > > > we try to follow a consensus driven decision making process here; this > > > seems to be diametrically opposed to that. > > > > The problem itself is serious since it can cause driver crashes. In > > > general I believe that we should not be in the business of shipping > > > obviously broken things. The only thing you are doing now is increase > toil > > > by forcing us to release a patch version almost immediately. > > > > The offending change was backported to a maintenance release. That is > > > something different than it being a previously known problem. > > > > I am not sure I follow the PR argument. You merged my initial PR > without > > > even checking in with me. That PR fixed the issue, it just needed > proper > > > tests and some touch-ups (again quality is important). I open a > follow-up > > > that contains proper testing, and yes this fails because of a change in > > > error types, it happens, I will fix it. The statement that we don't > have a > > > fix is untrue, the fact that you state otherwise makes me seriously > doubt > > > your judgement here. You could have asked me or someone else, you could > > > have leaned in and checked it yourself. > > > > > > > > I would like to understand why there is such a rush here. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Herman > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 7:27 AM Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> After rechecking, this vote passed. > > > >> > > > >> I'll send a vote result email. > > > >> > > > >> Dongjoon. > > > >> > > > >> On 2025/12/16 11:03:39 Dongjoon Hyun wrote: > > > >> > Hi, All. > > > >> > > > > >> > I've been working with Herman's PRs so far. > > > >> > > > > >> > As a kind of fact checking, I need to correct two things in RC3 > > > thread. > > > >> > > > > >> > First, Herman claimed that he found a regression of Apache Spark > > > 4.1.0, but actually it's not true because Apache Spark 4.0.1 also has > > > SPARK-53342 since 2025-09-06. > > > >> > > > > >> > Second, although Herman shared us a patch since last Friday, > Herman > > > also made another PR containing the main code change 9 hours ago. In > > > addition, unfortunately, it also didn't pass our CIs yet. It simply > means > > > that there is no complete patch yet in the community for both Apache > Spark > > > 4.1.0 and 4.0.2. > > > >> > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53480 > > > >> > ([SPARK-54696][CONNECT] Clean-up Arrow Buffers - follow-up) > > > >> > > > > >> > In short, he seems to block RC3 as a mistake. I'm re-checking the > > > situation around RC3 vote and `branch-4.1` situation. > > > >> > > > > >> > Dongjoon. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On 2025/12/15 14:59:32 Herman van Hovell via dev wrote: > > > >> > > > > > I pasted a non-existing link for the root cause. The > actual > > > link is here: > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-53342 > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 10:47 AM Herman van Hovell < > > > >> > > > > [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hey Dongjoon, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regarding your questions. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. If you define a large-ish local relation (which > makes > > > us cache it > > > >> > > > > > > on the serverside) and keep using it, then leak > off-heap > > > memory > > > >> > > > > every time > > > >> > > > > > > it is being used. At some point the OS will OOM kill > the > > > driver. > > > >> > > > > While I > > > >> > > > > > > have a repro, testing it like this in CI is not a > good > > > idea. As an > > > >> > > > > > > alternative I am working on a test that checks buffer > > > clean-up.For > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > record I don't appreciate the term `claim` here; I am > > > not blocking a > > > >> > > > > > > release without genuine concern. > > > >> > > > > > > 2. The root cause is > > > >> > > > > > > https://databricks.atlassian.net/browse/SPARK-53342 > and > > > not the > > > >> > > > > large > > > >> > > > > > > local relations work. > > > >> > > > > > > 3. A PR has been open since Friday: > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53452. I hope > that > > > I can get > > > >> > > > > it > > > >> > > > > > > merged today. > > > >> > > > > > > 4. I don't see a reason why. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cheers, > > > >> > > > > > > Herman > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Dongjoon Hyun < > > > [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> How can we verify the regression, Herman? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> It's a little difficult for me to evaluate your claim > so > > > far due to > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > >> lack of the shared information. Specifically, there is > no > > > update for > > > >> > > > > last 3 > > > >> > > > > > >> days on "SPARK-54696 (Spark Connect LocalRelation > support > > > leak > > > >> > > > > off-heap > > > >> > > > > > >> memory)" after you created it. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> Could you provide us more technical information about > your > > > Spark > > > >> > > > > Connect > > > >> > > > > > >> issue? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. How can we reproduce your claim? Do you have a test > > > case? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. For the root cause, I'm wondering if you are saying > > > literally > > > >> > > > > > >> SPARK-53917 (Support large local relations) or another > > > JIRA issue. > > > >> > > > > Which > > > >> > > > > > >> commit is the root cause? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 3. Since you assigned SPARK-54696 to yourself for last > 3 > > > days, do you > > > >> > > > > > >> want to provide a PR soon? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 4. If you need more time, shall we simply revert the > root > > > cause from > > > >> > > > > > >> Apache Spark 4.1.0 ? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > >> Dongjoon > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2025/12/14 23:29:59 Herman van Hovell via dev wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > Yes. It is a regression in Spark 4.1. The root cause > is > > > a change > > > >> > > > > where > > > >> > > > > > >> we > > > >> > > > > > >> > fail to clean-up allocated (off-heap) buffers. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 4:25 AM Dongjoon Hyun < > > > [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hi, Herman. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Do you mean that is a regression at Apache Spark > 4.1.0? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > If then, do you know what was the root cause? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Dongjoon. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On 2025/12/13 23:09:02 Herman van Hovell via dev > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -1. We need to get > > > >> > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-54696 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > fixed. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 11:07 AM Jules Damji < > > > >> > > > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > +1 non-binding > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > — > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Pardon the dumb thumb typos :) > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Dec 11, 2025, at 8:34 AM, > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please vote on releasing the following > > > candidate as Apache > > > >> > > > > > >> Spark > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > version 4.1.0. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The vote is open until Sun, 14 Dec 2025 > 09:34:31 > > > PST and > > > >> > > > > passes > > > >> > > > > > >> if a > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > majority +1 PMC votes are cast, with > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > a minimum of 3 +1 votes. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Spark > 4.1.0 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because > ... > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > To learn more about Apache Spark, please see > > > >> > > > > > >> > > https://spark.apache.org/ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The tag to be voted on is v4.1.0-rc3 (commit > > > e221b56be7b): > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/tree/v4.1.0-rc3 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The release files, including signatures, > > > digests, etc. can > > > >> > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > >> found > > > >> > > > > > >> > > at: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/spark/v4.1.0-rc3-bin/ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Signatures used for Spark RCs can be found in > > > this file: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > https://downloads.apache.org/spark/KEYS > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The staging repository for this release can > be > > > found at: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachespark-1508/ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The documentation corresponding to this > release > > > can be > > > >> > > > > found at: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/spark/v4.1.0-rc3-docs/ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The list of bug fixes going into 4.1.0 can be > > > found at the > > > >> > > > > > >> following > > > >> > > > > > >> > > URL: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SPARK/versions/12355581 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > FAQ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ========================= > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > How can I help test this release? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ========================= > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If you are a Spark user, you can help us test > > > this release > > > >> > > > > by > > > >> > > > > > >> taking > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > an existing Spark workload and running on > this > > > release > > > >> > > > > > >> candidate, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > then > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > reporting any regressions. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If you're working in PySpark you can set up a > > > virtual env > > > >> > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > >> install > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > the current RC via "pip install > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/spark/v4.1.0-rc3-bin/pyspark-4.1.0.tar.gz > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > " > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > and see if anything important breaks. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > In the Java/Scala, you can add the staging > > > repository to > > > >> > > > > your > > > >> > > > > > >> > > project's > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > resolvers and test > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > with the RC (make sure to clean up the > artifact > > > cache > > > >> > > > > > >> before/after so > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > you don't end up building with an out of > date RC > > > going > > > >> > > > > forward). > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe e-mail: > > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > To unsubscribe e-mail: > > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > > >> > > To unsubscribe e-mail: > > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > > >> To unsubscribe e-mail: > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] > >
