+1, I have the same concern for the incompatible license. Jacques Nadeau <jacquesnad...@gmail.com> 于2021年11月8日周一 上午11:48写道：
> A few additional observations about StarRocks... > > - As far as I can tell, StarRocks has an ASF incompatible license (Elastic > License 2.0). > - It appears to be a hard fork of Apache Doris, a project still in the > incubator (and looks like it probably is destructive to the Doris project) > - The project has only existed for ~2 months. > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 7:34 PM OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Any thoughts for adding StarRocks integration to the roadmap ? >> >> I think the guys from StarRocks community can provide more background and >> inputs. >> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:59 PM OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Update: >>> >>> StarRocks[1] is a next-gen sub-second MPP database for full analysis >>> scenarios, including multi-dimensional analytics, real-time analytics and >>> ad-hoc query. Their team is planning to integrate iceberg tables as >>> StarRocks external tables in the next month [2], so that people could >>> connect the data lake and StarRocks warehouse in the same engine. >>> The excellent performance of StarRocks will also help accelerate the >>> analysis and access of the iceberg table, I think this is a great thing for >>> both the iceberg community and the StarRocks community. I think we can >>> add an extra project about StarRocks integration work in the apache iceberg >>> roadmap [3] ? >>> >>> [1]. https://github.com/StarRocks/starrocks >>> [2]. https://github.com/StarRocks/starrocks/issues/1030 >>> [3]. https://github.com/apache/iceberg/projects >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 11:52 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: >>> >>>> I closed the upgrade project and marked the FLIP-27 project priority 1. >>>> Thanks for all the work to get this done! >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 8:10 PM OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Update: >>>>> >>>>> I think the project [Flink: Upgrade to 1.13.2][1] in RoadMap can be >>>>> closed now, because all of the issues have been addressed. >>>>> >>>>> [1]. https://github.com/apache/iceberg/projects/12 >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 6:17 PM Eduard Tudenhoefner <edu...@dremio.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I created a Roadmap section in >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/3163 >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/3163> that links to the >>>>>> planning boards that Jack created. I figured it makes sense if we link >>>>>> available Design Docs directly on those Boards (as was already done), >>>>>> because then the Design docs are closer to the set of related issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:02 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Jack! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eduard, I think that's a good idea. We should have a roadmap page as >>>>>>> well that links to the projects that Jack just created. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 12:57 PM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems like we have reached some consensus around the projects >>>>>>>> listed here. I have created corresponding Github projects for each: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/projects >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Related design docs are also linked there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Jack Ye >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 11:18 PM Eduard Tudenhoefner < >>>>>>>> edu...@dremio.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would it make sense to have a section on the website where we >>>>>>>>> collect all the links to the design docs/specs as that would be >>>>>>>>> easier to >>>>>>>>> find than searching for things on the ML? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was thinking about something like for each component: >>>>>>>>> * link to the ML discussion >>>>>>>>> * link to the actual Spec/Design Doc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:38 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At the last sync meeting, we brought up publishing a community >>>>>>>>>> roadmap and brainstormed the many features and initiatives that the >>>>>>>>>> community is working on. In this thread, I want to make sure that we >>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>> good list of what people are thinking about and I think we should >>>>>>>>>> try to >>>>>>>>>> categorize the projects by size and general priority. When we reach >>>>>>>>>> a rough >>>>>>>>>> agreement, I’ll write this up and post it on the ASF site along with >>>>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>>>> to some projects in Github. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My rationale for attempting to prioritize projects is that if we >>>>>>>>>> try to do too many things, it will be slower progress across >>>>>>>>>> everything >>>>>>>>>> rather than getting a few important items done. I know that >>>>>>>>>> priorities >>>>>>>>>> don’t align very cleanly in practice, but it is hopefully worth >>>>>>>>>> trying. To >>>>>>>>>> come up with a priority, I’m trying to keep top priority items to a >>>>>>>>>> minimum >>>>>>>>>> by including only one from each group (Spark, Flink, Python, etc.). >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> remaining items are split between priority 2 and 3. Priority 3 is not >>>>>>>>>> urgent, including things that can be plugged in (like other IO >>>>>>>>>> libraries), >>>>>>>>>> docs, etc. Everything else is priority 2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That something isn’t priority 1 doesn’t mean it isn’t important >>>>>>>>>> or progressing, just that it isn’t the current focus. I think of it >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> way: if someone has extra time to review something, what should be >>>>>>>>>> next? >>>>>>>>>> That’s top priority. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here’s my rough categorization. If you disagree, please speak up: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - If you think that something should be top priority, what >>>>>>>>>> gets moved to priority 2? >>>>>>>>>> - Should the priority for a project in 2 or 3 change? >>>>>>>>>> - Is the S/M/L size of a project wrong? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Top priority, 1: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - API: Iceberg 1.0 [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - Spark: Merge-on-read plans [large] >>>>>>>>>> - Maintenance: Delete file compaction [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Flink: Upgrade to 1.13.2 (document compatibility) [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Python: Pythonic refactor [medium] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Priority 2: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - ORC: Support delete files stored as ORC [small] >>>>>>>>>> - Spark: DSv2 streaming improvements [small] >>>>>>>>>> - Flink: Inline file compaction [small] >>>>>>>>>> - Flink: Support UPSERT [small] >>>>>>>>>> - Views: Spec [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - Spec: Z-ordering / Space-filling curves [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - Spec: Snapshot tagging and branching [small] >>>>>>>>>> - Spec: Secondary indexes [large] >>>>>>>>>> - Spec v3: Encryption [large] >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Spec v3: Relative paths [large] >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Spec v3: Default field values [medium] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Priority 3: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Docs: versioned docs [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - IO: Support Aliyun OSS/DLF [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - IO: Support Dell ECS [medium] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> External: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Trino: Bucketed joins [small] >>>>>>>>>> - Trino: Row-level delete support [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - Trino: Merge-on-read plans [medium] >>>>>>>>>> - Trino: Multi-catalog support [small] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>>>>>>> Tabular >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>>>> Tabular >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ryan Blue >>>> Tabular >>>> >>>
