I agree, flagging new features as experimental is fine but the existing "spec" is not experimental anymore imho.
Regards JB On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 5:39 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything > currently in the spec. > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote: > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the discussion. > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show up in > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused about > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol extensions > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating phase? > > > > Laurent > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are still > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Micah > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything else > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote: > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked > >> experimental > >> > as > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those? > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com.invalid > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we consider it > >> > >> stable > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 (not binding) > >> > >> > >> > >> Laurent > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol > >> <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid > >> > > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong > >> > >> > <james.du...@improving.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > >> > >> > > ________________________________ > >> > >> > > From: David Li <lidav...@apache.org> > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <dev@arrow.apache.org> > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the beginning. > >> Given > >> > >> that > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should we > >> remove > >> > >> this > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes > >> anymore. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR: > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040 > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > -David > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >>
