IMHO it's probably better to avoid trying to figure out a workaround if
that is the "policy" of ASF.
Btw, I guess the main point here is, what is the definition of "acceptable"
release. For example, do we feel overloaded to just verify the signature
per month? I think we wouldn't. The reason the t
Great point. I would eventually like to remove the vote overhead as well.
It is required per ASF policy but I am actually taking a look around to
work around this.
I took it as monthly because it seems to be pretty enough given my
experience of releasing Spark 3.5.6 via automated GitHub Actions.
I
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 9:42 PM Hyukjin Kwon wrote:
>
> > 1. Since we "release" the preview, we will go through the VOTE process.
> > What is the expected overhead on doing this monthly? (Maybe this would be
> > coupled with the questions below.)
>
> We have to vote for every preview every month
Sounds good. I think this is worth giving a try and we can adjust upon
lessons learned if any. Thanks for the proposal!
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 1:42 PM Hyukjin Kwon wrote:
> > 1. Since we "release" the preview, we will go through the VOTE process.
> What is the expected overhead on doing this mon
> 1. Since we "release" the preview, we will go through the VOTE process.
What is the expected overhead on doing this monthly? (Maybe this would be
coupled with the questions below.)
We have to vote for every preview every month for now. We can try and see
how it goes.
> 2. What quality do we for
Thanks for the proposal. The direction is awesome - we have such a long
interval between minor releases and this would help us address some of the
issues from the long release cadence.
I'd like to understand a couple of things.
1. Since we "release" the preview, we will go through the VOTE proces
Let me start the vote tmr if we're all good with this :-).
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 at 10:12, Anton Okolnychyi wrote:
> Having monthly preview releases for Spark is going to be huge for projects
> like Iceberg and Delta.
>
> - Anton
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 5:43 PM Dongjoon Hyun wrote:
>
>> Thank y
Having monthly preview releases for Spark is going to be huge for projects
like Iceberg and Delta.
- Anton
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 5:43 PM Dongjoon Hyun wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification, Hyukjin. Also, thank you for sharing your
> direction, DB.
>
> I agree with you folks that the AS-IS
Thank you for the clarification, Hyukjin. Also, thank you for sharing your
direction, DB.
I agree with you folks that the AS-IS scope of SPIP is a good start.
+1 for the SPIP because `4.1.0-previewX` itself is actually very helpful
already during developing Spark subprojects like "Spark Connect
Hi Dongjoon,
Thanks a lot for your detailed feedback and great questions!
Let me clarify my current proposal and thoughts:
1. Regarding Spark 5.0 schedule
At the moment, I don’t have a concrete Spark 5.0 schedule in mind.
I included the stable major releases in the Final Success criteria mainly
t
Thank you, Hyukjin for driving the SPIP and for your work on the release
automation infrastructure — it’s a huge step forward.
I’ve been thinking about this topic quite a bit since the Spark 4.0 release.
While Spark continues to deliver meaningful improvements in every release and
enjoys acti
Thank you so much for the suggestion and achieving the automated infra, Hyujkin.
I have a few questions.
1. Since the SPIP suggests Apache Spark 5.0 ("Stable major releases") as "Q8.
Final Success" criteria. I'm wondering if you have some schedule in your mind
for Spark 5.0 in next 2 years?
2.
Hi all,
I would like to propose a monthly preview for our dev branch, e.g., Spark
4.1.0 preview1 ... previewN.
Per https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-52176, we have minimized
the manual work so I think it's realistic to propose this.
Couple of notes:
- The manual steps it requires would
13 matches
Mail list logo
