Unmarking most things as experimental, evolving for 3.0?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Unmarking most things as experimental, evolving for 3.0?

Sean Owen-3
There are currently about 130 things marked as 'experimental' in
Spark, and some have been around since Spark 1.x. A few may be
legitimately still experimental (e.g. barrier mode), but, would it be
safe to say most of these annotations should be removed for 3.0?

What's the theory for evolving vs experimental -- would almost all of
these items from, say, 2.3 and before be considered stable now, de
facto? Meaning, if we wouldn't take a breaking change for them after
3.0, seems like they're stable.

I can open a PR that removes most of it and see if anything looks
wrong, if that's an easy way forward.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unmarking most things as experimental, evolving for 3.0?

Dongjoon Hyun-2
+1 for unmarking old ones (made in `2.3.x` and before).
Thank you, Sean.

Bests,
Dongjoon.

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 6:46 PM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
There are currently about 130 things marked as 'experimental' in
Spark, and some have been around since Spark 1.x. A few may be
legitimately still experimental (e.g. barrier mode), but, would it be
safe to say most of these annotations should be removed for 3.0?

What's the theory for evolving vs experimental -- would almost all of
these items from, say, 2.3 and before be considered stable now, de
facto? Meaning, if we wouldn't take a breaking change for them after
3.0, seems like they're stable.

I can open a PR that removes most of it and see if anything looks
wrong, if that's an easy way forward.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unmarking most things as experimental, evolving for 3.0?

Marco Gaido
Thanks for bringing this out Sean.
+1 from me as well!

Thanks,
Marco

Il giorno gio 22 ago 2019 alle ore 08:21 Dongjoon Hyun <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
+1 for unmarking old ones (made in `2.3.x` and before).
Thank you, Sean.

Bests,
Dongjoon.

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 6:46 PM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
There are currently about 130 things marked as 'experimental' in
Spark, and some have been around since Spark 1.x. A few may be
legitimately still experimental (e.g. barrier mode), but, would it be
safe to say most of these annotations should be removed for 3.0?

What's the theory for evolving vs experimental -- would almost all of
these items from, say, 2.3 and before be considered stable now, de
facto? Meaning, if we wouldn't take a breaking change for them after
3.0, seems like they're stable.

I can open a PR that removes most of it and see if anything looks
wrong, if that's an easy way forward.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unmarking most things as experimental, evolving for 3.0?

Sean Owen-3
Proposal at https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/25558

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:33 AM Marco Gaido <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thanks for bringing this out Sean.
> +1 from me as well!
>
> Thanks,
> Marco
>
> Il giorno gio 22 ago 2019 alle ore 08:21 Dongjoon Hyun <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>>
>> +1 for unmarking old ones (made in `2.3.x` and before).
>> Thank you, Sean.
>>
>> Bests,
>> Dongjoon.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 6:46 PM Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are currently about 130 things marked as 'experimental' in
>>> Spark, and some have been around since Spark 1.x. A few may be
>>> legitimately still experimental (e.g. barrier mode), but, would it be
>>> safe to say most of these annotations should be removed for 3.0?
>>>
>>> What's the theory for evolving vs experimental -- would almost all of
>>> these items from, say, 2.3 and before be considered stable now, de
>>> facto? Meaning, if we wouldn't take a breaking change for them after
>>> 3.0, seems like they're stable.
>>>
>>> I can open a PR that removes most of it and see if anything looks
>>> wrong, if that's an easy way forward.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe e-mail: [hidden email]