Much appreciated. I only have so much know-how in this area but
CALCITE-5469 looks completely normal to me, just something that we need
to accommodate due to Drill having at some point settled on a
conflicting definition of DATE_DIFF that seems to resemble Hive and
MySQL's DATEDIFFs (no underscore) more than anything else.
We'll start a new thread if we can't simply take care of it ourselves.
On 2023/03/08 19:28, Tanner Clary wrote:
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
