Hello, With regards to the unrelated issue with DATE_DIFF, I authored CALCITE-5469 so perhaps if you want to open a new thread or post a comment on the case itself, I would be happy to take a look.
Best, Tanner On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 8:42 AM James Turton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > All of Drill's DATE_TRUNC unit tests pass when Drill uses > calcite-1.34.0-SNAPSHOT (and once we accommodate the new QUALIFY > clause). While we do now have an unrelated issue with DATE_DIFF which I > believe has resulted from the introduction of a three parameter > DATE_DIFF function in CALCITE-5469, I'm quite sure that we can resolve > this in Drill. > > In summary I'm a +1 for this Calcite snapshot becoming an RC. > > Thanks > James Turton > > > On 2023/03/07 00:11, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > > Hey Charles, > > > > Please test Drill with the latest calcite-1.34.0-SNAPSHOT [1] and if all > is > > good on your end I will prepare an RC for vote. > > > > Best, > > Stamatis > > > > [1] > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/calcite/calcite-core/1.34.0-SNAPSHOT/ > > > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:16 PM Charles Givre <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Julian, > >> Now that Drill is on main Calcite instead of the fork, I'll commit that > >> the Drill community will do our best to try Drill with the RC > candidates to > >> see if we can catch issues during the release cycle. > >> Thanks, > >> -- C > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 5, 2023, at 12:20 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> It was indeed a regression, but it didn’t break any of Calcite’s tests > >> and no one spoke up during the release vote. Mistakes are expensive to > fix > >> after a release, cheaper during the release vote, and cheapest of all if > >> found by the test suite. > >>>> On Mar 5, 2023, at 6:33 AM, Charles Givre <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> That would be great! Again I’m only asking because this was a > >> regression. I really do appreciate it. Thanks! > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>> > >>>>> On Mar 4, 2023, at 13:59, Stamatis Zampetakis <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>> If we get the 1.34.0 out a bit sooner than usual I guess this will > be > >> good > >>>>> enough for Drill. If the others agree I can try to prepare an RC > during > >>>>> next week. WDYT ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Stamatis > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2023, 6:13 PM Alessandro Solimando < > >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The second option Benchao mentions is what Hive currently does as > >> well. > >>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>> Alessandro > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Sat 4 Mar 2023, 13:19 Benchao Li, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Charles, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank for reaching out! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> IIRC, the idea of releasing bugfix version has been brought up in > >> the > >>>>>> past, > >>>>>>> but I couldn't find the discussion (in Jira and dev ML). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'd like to share my understanding why we chose not to release bug > >> fix > >>>>>>> versions, please correct me if I'm wrong, > >>>>>>> - Calcite has many bug fixes that span multi versions (even more > >> that 10 > >>>>>>> versions), then only keeping several (such as 3) bug fix releases > >> does > >>>>>> not > >>>>>>> solve all these problems. > >>>>>>> - Actually we usually do not distinguish too much between "bugfix" > >> and > >>>>>> "new > >>>>>>> feature", so maintaining bug fix releases is not that easy. > >>>>>>> - Calcite lacks reviewers and also release managers, only keeping > >> linear > >>>>>>> releasing in rhythm could save us some efforts. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For regressions, I agree that this hurts downstream projects. For > >> such > >>>>>>> cases, there are two approaches come into my mind: > >>>>>>> - We can release a new version quickly than usual. > >>>>>>> - The projects that need the fix/feature before our next scheduled > >>>>>> release, > >>>>>>> they could copy these files into their projects, as we already did > in > >>>>>>> Flink[1]. They could remove these files once they adopt the new > >> release > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>> Calcite. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I hope this helps. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/flink/tree/master/flink-table/flink-table-planner/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Charles Givre <[email protected]> 于2023年3月2日周四 06:22写道： > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hello Calcite Devs, > >>>>>>>> I wanted to thank everyone for the recent release of Calcite 1.33. > >> I > >>>>>> am > >>>>>>>> the PMC Chair for Apache Drill and we just released Drill 1.21[0] > >> which > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> now using the latest version of Calcite instead of our 2-3 year > old > >>>>>> fork! > >>>>>>>> However, we encountered a small issue with Calcite 1.33 that does > >> not > >>>>>>>> affect just Drill. Specifically, there was a regression which was > >>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>> by CALCITE-5447[1] which effectively broke the DATE_TRUNC > function. > >>>>>> The > >>>>>>>> bugfix has been fixed and merged in CALCITE-5522[2]. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In any event, given that this function is fairly important and the > >>>>>>> lengthy > >>>>>>>> release schedules of both Drill and Calcite, I wanted to ask > whether > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Calcite might consider doing a quick bugfix release with this and > >> any > >>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>> regressions that may have popped up in 1.33 and have since been > >> fixed. > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for all your work! > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> -- Charles > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [0]: > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/drill-site/blob/master/blog/_posts/en/2023-02-21-drill-1.21.0-released.md > >>>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5447 > >>>>>>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5522 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Benchao Li > >>>>>>> > >> > >
