Yes, users suggesting SIPs is a good thing and is explicitly called out in the linked document under the Who? section. Formally proposing them, not so much, because of the political realities.
Yes, implementation strategy definitely affects goals. There are all kinds of examples of this, I'll pick one that's my fault so as to avoid sounding like I'm blaming: When I implemented the Kafka DStream, one of my (not explicitly agreed upon by the community) goals was to make sure people could use the Dstream with however they were already using Kafka at work. The lack of explicit agreement on that goal led to all kinds of fighting with committers, that could have been avoided. The lack of explicit up-front strategy discussion led to the DStream not really working with compacted topics. I knew about compacted topics, but don't have a use for them, so had a blind spot there. If there was explicit up-front discussion that my strategy was "assume that batches can be defined on the driver solely by beginning and ending offsets", there's a greater chance that a user would have seen that and said, "hey, what about non-contiguous offsets in a compacted topic". This kind of thing is only going to happen smoothly if we have a lightweight user-visible process with clear outcomes. On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:34 AM, assaf.mendelson <assaf.mendel...@rsa.com> wrote: > I agree with most of what Cody said. > > Two things: > > First we can always have other people suggest SIPs but mark them as > “unreviewed” and have committers basically move them forward. The problem is > that writing a good document takes time. This way we can leverage non > committers to do some of this work (it is just another way to contribute). > > > > As for strategy, in many cases implementation strategy can affect the goals. > I will give a small example: In the current structured streaming strategy, > we group by the time to achieve a sliding window. This is definitely an > implementation decision and not a goal. However, I can think of several > aggregation functions which have the time inside their calculation buffer. > For example, let’s say we want to return a set of all distinct values. One > way to implement this would be to make the set into a map and have the value > contain the last time seen. Multiplying it across the groupby would cost a > lot in performance. So adding such a strategy would have a great effect on > the type of aggregations and their performance which does affect the goal. > Without adding the strategy, it is easy for whoever goes to the design > document to not think about these cases. Furthermore, it might be decided > that these cases are rare enough so that the strategy is still good enough > but how would we know it without user feedback? > > I believe this example is exactly what Cody was talking about. Since many > times implementation strategies have a large effect on the goal, we should > have it discussed when discussing the goals. In addition, while it is often > easy to throw out completely infeasible goals, it is often much harder to > figure out that the goals are unfeasible without fine tuning. > > > > > > Assaf. > > > > From: Cody Koeninger-2 [via Apache Spark Developers List] > [mailto:ml-node+[hidden email]] > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 2:25 AM > To: Mendelson, Assaf > Subject: Re: Spark Improvement Proposals > > > > Only committers should formally submit SIPs because in an apache > project only commiters have explicit political power. If a user can't > find a commiter willing to sponsor an SIP idea, they have no way to > get the idea passed in any case. If I can't find a committer to > sponsor this meta-SIP idea, I'm out of luck. > > I do not believe unrealistic goals can be found solely by inspection. > We've managed to ignore unrealistic goals even after implementation! > Focusing on APIs can allow people to think they've solved something, > when there's really no way of implementing that API while meeting the > goals. Rapid iteration is clearly the best way to address this, but > we've already talked about why that hasn't really worked. If adding a > non-binding API section to the template is important to you, I'm not > against it, but I don't think it's sufficient. > > On your PRD vs design doc spectrum, I'm saying this is closer to a > PRD. Clear agreement on goals is the most important thing and that's > why it's the thing I want binding agreement on. But I cannot agree to > goals unless I have enough minimal technical info to judge whether the > goals are likely to actually be accomplished. > > > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Matei Zaharia <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> Well, I think there are a few things here that don't make sense. First, >> why >> should only committers submit SIPs? Development in the project should be >> open to all contributors, whether they're committers or not. Second, I >> think >> unrealistic goals can be found just by inspecting the goals, and I'm not >> super worried that we'll accept a lot of SIPs that are then infeasible -- >> we >> can then submit new ones. But this depends on whether you want this >> process >> to be a "design doc lite", where people also agree on implementation >> strategy, or just a way to agree on goals. This is what I asked earlier >> about PRDs vs design docs (and I'm open to either one but I'd just like >> clarity). Finally, both as a user and designer of software, I always want >> to >> give feedback on APIs, so I'd really like a culture of having those early. >> People don't argue about prettiness when they discuss APIs, they argue >> about >> the core concepts to expose in order to meet various goals, and then >> they're >> stuck maintaining those for a long time. >> >> Matei >> >> On Oct 9, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Cody Koeninger <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Users instead of people, sure. Commiters and contributors are (or at >> least >> should be) a subset of users. >> >> Non goals, sure. I don't care what the name is, but we need to clearly say >> e.g. 'no we are not maintaining compatibility with XYZ right now'. >> >> API, what I care most about is whether it allows me to accomplish the >> goals. >> Arguing about how ugly or pretty it is can be saved for design/ >> implementation imho. >> >> Strategy, this is necessary because otherwise goals can be out of line >> with >> reality. Don't propose goals you don't have at least some idea of how to >> implement. >> >> Rejected strategies, given that commiters are the only ones I'm saying >> should formally submit SPARKLIs or SIPs, if they put junk in a required >> section then slap them down for it and tell them to fix it. >> >> >> On Oct 9, 2016 4:36 PM, "Matei Zaharia" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Yup, this is the stuff that I found unclear. Thanks for clarifying here, >>> but we should also clarify it in the writeup. In particular: >>> >>> - Goals needs to be about user-facing behavior ("people" is broad) >>> >>> - I'd rename Rejected Goals to Non-Goals. Otherwise someone will dig up >>> one of these and say "Spark's developers have officially rejected X, >>> which >>> our awesome system has". >>> >>> - For user-facing stuff, I think you need a section on API. Virtually all >>> other *IPs I've seen have that. >>> >>> - I'm still not sure why the strategy section is needed if the purpose is >>> to define user-facing behavior -- unless this is the strategy for setting >>> the goals or for defining the API. That sounds squarely like a design doc >>> issue. In some sense, who cares whether the proposal is technically >>> feasible >>> right now? If it's infeasible, that will be discovered later during >>> design >>> and implementation. Same thing with rejected strategies -- listing some >>> of >>> those is definitely useful sometimes, but if you make this a *required* >>> section, people are just going to fill it in with bogus stuff (I've seen >>> this happen before). >>> >>> Matei >>> > >>> > On Oct 9, 2016, at 2:14 PM, Cody Koeninger <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> > >>> > So to focus the discussion on the specific strategy I'm suggesting, >>> > documented at >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://github.com/koeninger/spark-1/blob/SIP-0/docs/spark-improvement-proposals.md >>> > >>> > "Goals: What must this allow people to do, that they can't currently?" >>> > >>> > Is it unclear that this is focusing specifically on people-visible >>> > behavior? >>> > >>> > Rejected goals - are important because otherwise people keep trying >>> > to argue about scope. Of course you can change things later with a >>> > different SIP and different vote, the point is to focus. >>> > >>> > Use cases - are something that people are going to bring up in >>> > discussion. If they aren't clearly documented as a goal ("This must >>> > allow me to connect using SSL"), they should be added. >>> > >>> > Internal architecture - if the people who need specific behavior are >>> > implementers of other parts of the system, that's fine. >>> > >>> > Rejected strategies - If you have none of these, you have no evidence >>> > that the proponent didn't just go with the first thing they had in >>> > mind (or have already implemented), which is a big problem currently. >>> > Approval isn't binding as to specifics of implementation, so these >>> > aren't handcuffs. The goals are the contract, the strategy is >>> > evidence that contract can actually be met. >>> > >>> > Design docs - I'm not touching design docs. The markdown file I >>> > linked specifically says of the strategy section "This is not a full >>> > design document." Is this unclear? Design docs can be worked on >>> > obviously, but that's not what I'm concerned with here. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Matei Zaharia <[hidden email]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> Hi Cody, >>> >> >>> >> I think this would be a lot more concrete if we had a more detailed >>> >> template >>> >> for SIPs. Right now, it's not super clear what's in scope -- e.g. are >>> >> they >>> >> a way to solicit feedback on the user-facing behavior or on the >>> >> internals? >>> >> "Goals" can cover both things. I've been thinking of SIPs more as >>> >> Product >>> >> Requirements Docs (PRDs), which focus on *what* a code change should >>> >> do >>> >> as >>> >> opposed to how. >>> >> >>> >> In particular, here are some things that you may or may not consider >>> >> in >>> >> scope for SIPs: >>> >> >>> >> - Goals and non-goals: This is definitely in scope, and IMO should >>> >> focus on >>> >> user-visible behavior (e.g. "system supports SQL window functions" or >>> >> "system continues working if one node fails"). BTW I wouldn't say >>> >> "rejected >>> >> goals" because some of them might become goals later, so we're not >>> >> definitively rejecting them. >>> >> >>> >> - Public API: Probably should be included in most SIPs unless it's too >>> >> large >>> >> to fully specify then (e.g. "let's add an ML library"). >>> >> >>> >> - Use cases: I usually find this very useful in PRDs to better >>> >> communicate >>> >> the goals. >>> >> >>> >> - Internal architecture: This is usually *not* a thing users can >>> >> easily >>> >> comment on and it sounds more like a design doc item. Of course it's >>> >> important to show that the SIP is feasible to implement. One >>> >> exception, >>> >> however, is that I think we'll have some SIPs primarily on internals >>> >> (e.g. >>> >> if somebody wants to refactor Spark's query optimizer or something). >>> >> >>> >> - Rejected strategies: I personally wouldn't put this, because what's >>> >> the >>> >> point of voting to reject a strategy before you've really begun >>> >> designing >>> >> and implementing something? What if you discover that the strategy is >>> >> actually better when you start doing stuff? >>> >> >>> >> At a super high level, it depends on whether you want the SIPs to be >>> >> PRDs >>> >> for getting some quick feedback on the goals of a feature before it is >>> >> designed, or something more like full-fledged design docs (just a more >>> >> visible design doc for bigger changes). I looked at Kafka's KIPs, and >>> >> they >>> >> actually seem to be more like design docs. This can work too but it >>> >> does >>> >> require more work from the proposer and it can lead to the same >>> >> problems you >>> >> mentioned with people already having a design and implementation in >>> >> mind. >>> >> >>> >> Basically, the question is, are you trying to iterate faster on design >>> >> by >>> >> adding a step for user feedback earlier? Or are you just trying to >>> >> make >>> >> design docs for key features more visible (and their approval more >>> >> formal)? >>> >> >>> >> BTW note that in either case, I'd like to have a template for design >>> >> docs >>> >> too, which should also include goals. I think that would've avoided >>> >> some of >>> >> the issues you brought up. >>> >> >>> >> Matei >>> >> >>> >> On Oct 9, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Cody Koeninger <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Here's my specific proposal (meta-proposal?) >>> >> >>> >> Spark Improvement Proposals (SIP) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Background: >>> >> >>> >> The current problem is that design and implementation of large >>> >> features >>> >> are >>> >> often done in private, before soliciting user feedback. >>> >> >>> >> When feedback is solicited, it is often as to detailed design >>> >> specifics, not >>> >> focused on goals. >>> >> >>> >> When implementation does take place after design, there is often >>> >> disagreement as to what goals are or are not in scope. >>> >> >>> >> This results in commits that don't fully meet user needs. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Goals: >>> >> >>> >> - Ensure user, contributor, and committer goals are clearly identified >>> >> and >>> >> agreed upon, before implementation takes place. >>> >> >>> >> - Ensure that a technically feasible strategy is chosen that is likely >>> >> to >>> >> meet the goals. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Rejected Goals: >>> >> >>> >> - SIPs are not for detailed design. Design by committee doesn't work. >>> >> >>> >> - SIPs are not for every change. We dont need that much process. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Strategy: >>> >> >>> >> My suggestion is outlined as a Spark Improvement Proposal process >>> >> documented >>> >> at >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> https://github.com/koeninger/spark-1/blob/SIP-0/docs/spark-improvement-proposals.md >>> >> >>> >> Specifics of Jira manipulation are an implementation detail we can >>> >> figure >>> >> out. >>> >> >>> >> I'm suggesting voting; the need here is for a _clear_ outcome. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Rejected Strategies: >>> >> >>> >> Having someone who understands the problem implement it first works, >>> >> but >>> >> only if significant iteration after user feedback is allowed. >>> >> >>> >> Historically this has been problematic due to pressure to limit public >>> >> api >>> >> changes. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Reynold Xin <[hidden email]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Alright looks like there are quite a bit of support. We should wait >>> >>> to >>> >>> hear from more people too. >>> >>> >>> >>> To push this forward, Cody and I will be working together in the next >>> >>> couple of weeks to come up with a concrete, detailed proposal on what >>> >>> this >>> >>> entails, and then we can discuss this the specific proposal as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Cody Koeninger <[hidden email]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Yeah, in case it wasn't clear, I was talking about SIPs for major >>> >>>> user-facing or cross-cutting changes, not minor feature adds. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Stavros Kontopoulos >>> >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> +1 to the SIP label as long as it does not slow down things and it >>> >>>>> targets optimizing efforts, coordination etc. For example really >>> >>>>> small >>> >>>>> features should not need to go through this process (assuming they >>> >>>>> dont >>> >>>>> touch public interfaces) or re-factorings and hope it will be kept >>> >>>>> this >>> >>>>> way. So as a guideline doc should be provided, like in the KIP >>> >>>>> case. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> IMHO so far aside from tagging things and linking them elsewhere >>> >>>>> simply >>> >>>>> having design docs and prototypes implementations in PRs is not >>> >>>>> something >>> >>>>> that has not worked so far. What is really a pain in many projects >>> >>>>> out there >>> >>>>> is discontinuity in progress of PRs, missing features, slow reviews >>> >>>>> which is >>> >>>>> understandable to some extent... it is not only about Spark but >>> >>>>> things can >>> >>>>> be improved for sure for this project in particular as already >>> >>>>> stated. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Cody Koeninger <[hidden email]> >>> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> +1 to adding an SIP label and linking it from the website. I >>> >>>>>> think >>> >>>>>> it >>> >>>>>> needs >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> - template that focuses it towards soliciting user goals / non >>> >>>>>> goals >>> >>>>>> - clear resolution as to which strategy was chosen to pursue. I'd >>> >>>>>> recommend a vote. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Matei asked me to clarify what I meant by changing interfaces, I >>> >>>>>> think >>> >>>>>> it's directly relevant to the SIP idea so I'll clarify here, and >>> >>>>>> split >>> >>>>>> a thread for the other discussion per Nicholas' request. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I meant changing public user interfaces. I think the first design >>> >>>>>> is >>> >>>>>> unlikely to be right, because it's done at a time when you have >>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>>>> least information. As a user, I find it considerably more >>> >>>>>> frustrating >>> >>>>>> to be unable to use a tool to get my job done, than I do having to >>> >>>>>> make minor changes to my code in order to take advantage of >>> >>>>>> features. >>> >>>>>> I've seen committers be seriously reluctant to allow changes to >>> >>>>>> @experimental code that are needed in order for it to really work >>> >>>>>> right. You need to be able to iterate, and if people on both >>> >>>>>> sides >>> >>>>>> of >>> >>>>>> the fence aren't going to respect that some newer apis are subject >>> >>>>>> to >>> >>>>>> change, then why even mark them as such? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Ideally a finished SIP should give me a checklist of things that >>> >>>>>> an >>> >>>>>> implementation must do, and things that it doesn't need to do. >>> >>>>>> Contributors/committers should be seriously discouraged from >>> >>>>>> putting >>> >>>>>> out a version 0.1 that doesn't have at least a prototype >>> >>>>>> implementation of all those things, especially if they're then >>> >>>>>> going >>> >>>>>> to argue against interface changes necessary to get the the rest >>> >>>>>> of >>> >>>>>> the things done in the 0.2 version. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Reynold Xin <[hidden email]> >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I like the lightweight proposal to add a SIP label. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> During Spark 2.0 development, Tom (Graves) and I suggested using >>> >>>>>>> wiki >>> >>>>>>> to >>> >>>>>>> track the list of major changes, but that never really >>> >>>>>>> materialized >>> >>>>>>> due to >>> >>>>>>> the overhead. Adding a SIP label on major JIRAs and then link to >>> >>>>>>> them >>> >>>>>>> prominently on the Spark website makes a lot of sense. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Matei Zaharia >>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> For the improvement proposals, I think one major point was to >>> >>>>>>>> make >>> >>>>>>>> them >>> >>>>>>>> really visible to users who are not contributors, so we should >>> >>>>>>>> do >>> >>>>>>>> more than >>> >>>>>>>> sending stuff to dev@. One very lightweight idea is to have a >>> >>>>>>>> new >>> >>>>>>>> type of >>> >>>>>>>> JIRA called a SIP and have a link to a filter that shows all >>> >>>>>>>> such >>> >>>>>>>> JIRAs from >>> >>>>>>>> http://spark.apache.org. I also like the idea of SIP and design >>> >>>>>>>> doc >>> >>>>>>>> templates (in fact many projects have them). >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Matei >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Reynold Xin <[hidden email]> >>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> I called Cody last night and talked about some of the topics in >>> >>>>>>>> his >>> >>>>>>>> email. >>> >>>>>>>> It became clear to me Cody genuinely cares about the project. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Some of the frustrations come from the success of the project >>> >>>>>>>> itself >>> >>>>>>>> becoming very "hot", and it is difficult to get clarity from >>> >>>>>>>> people >>> >>>>>>>> who >>> >>>>>>>> don't dedicate all their time to Spark. In fact, it is in some >>> >>>>>>>> ways >>> >>>>>>>> similar >>> >>>>>>>> to scaling an engineering team in a successful startup: old >>> >>>>>>>> processes that >>> >>>>>>>> worked well might not work so well when it gets to a certain >>> >>>>>>>> size, >>> >>>>>>>> cultures >>> >>>>>>>> can get diluted, building culture vs building process, etc. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> I also really like to have a more visible process for larger >>> >>>>>>>> changes, >>> >>>>>>>> especially major user facing API changes. Historically we upload >>> >>>>>>>> design docs >>> >>>>>>>> for major changes, but it is not always consistent and difficult >>> >>>>>>>> to >>> >>>>>>>> quality >>> >>>>>>>> of the docs, due to the volunteering nature of the organization. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Some of the more concrete ideas we discussed focus on building a >>> >>>>>>>> culture >>> >>>>>>>> to improve clarity: >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> - Process: Large changes should have design docs posted on JIRA. >>> >>>>>>>> One >>> >>>>>>>> thing >>> >>>>>>>> Cody and I didn't discuss but an idea that just came to me is we >>> >>>>>>>> should >>> >>>>>>>> create a design doc template for the project and ask everybody >>> >>>>>>>> to >>> >>>>>>>> follow. >>> >>>>>>>> The design doc template should also explicitly list goals and >>> >>>>>>>> non-goals, to >>> >>>>>>>> make design doc more consistent. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> - Process: Email dev@ to solicit feedback. We have some this >>> >>>>>>>> with >>> >>>>>>>> some >>> >>>>>>>> changes, but again very inconsistent. Just posting something on >>> >>>>>>>> JIRA >>> >>>>>>>> isn't >>> >>>>>>>> sufficient, because there are simply too many JIRAs and the >>> >>>>>>>> signal >>> >>>>>>>> get lost >>> >>>>>>>> in the noise. While this is generally impossible to enforce >>> >>>>>>>> because >>> >>>>>>>> we can't >>> >>>>>>>> force all volunteers to conform to a process (or they might not >>> >>>>>>>> even >>> >>>>>>>> be >>> >>>>>>>> aware of this), those who are more familiar with the project >>> >>>>>>>> can >>> >>>>>>>> help by >>> >>>>>>>> emailing the dev@ when they see something that hasn't been. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> - Culture: The design doc author(s) should be open to feedback. >>> >>>>>>>> A >>> >>>>>>>> design >>> >>>>>>>> doc should serve as the base for discussion and is by no means >>> >>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>> final >>> >>>>>>>> design. Of course, this does not mean the author has to accept >>> >>>>>>>> every >>> >>>>>>>> feedback. They should also be comfortable accepting / rejecting >>> >>>>>>>> ideas on >>> >>>>>>>> technical grounds. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> - Process / Culture: For major ongoing projects, it can be >>> >>>>>>>> useful >>> >>>>>>>> to >>> >>>>>>>> have >>> >>>>>>>> some monthly Google hangouts that are open to the world. I am >>> >>>>>>>> actually not >>> >>>>>>>> sure how well this will work, because of the volunteering nature >>> >>>>>>>> and >>> >>>>>>>> we need >>> >>>>>>>> to adjust for timezones for people across the globe, but it >>> >>>>>>>> seems >>> >>>>>>>> worth >>> >>>>>>>> trying. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> - Culture: Contributors (including committers) should be more >>> >>>>>>>> direct >>> >>>>>>>> in >>> >>>>>>>> setting expectations, including whether they are working on a >>> >>>>>>>> specific >>> >>>>>>>> issue, whether they will be working on a specific issue, and >>> >>>>>>>> whether >>> >>>>>>>> an >>> >>>>>>>> issue or pr or jira should be rejected. Most people I know in >>> >>>>>>>> this >>> >>>>>>>> community >>> >>>>>>>> are nice and don't enjoy telling other people no, but it is >>> >>>>>>>> often >>> >>>>>>>> more >>> >>>>>>>> annoying to a contributor to not know anything than getting a >>> >>>>>>>> no. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Matei Zaharia >>> >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> >>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Love the idea of a more visible "Spark Improvement Proposal" >>> >>>>>>>>> process that >>> >>>>>>>>> solicits user input on new APIs. For what it's worth, I don't >>> >>>>>>>>> think >>> >>>>>>>>> committers are trying to minimize their own work -- every >>> >>>>>>>>> committer >>> >>>>>>>>> cares >>> >>>>>>>>> about making the software useful for users. However, it is >>> >>>>>>>>> always >>> >>>>>>>>> hard to >>> >>>>>>>>> get user input and so it helps to have this kind of process. >>> >>>>>>>>> I've >>> >>>>>>>>> certainly >>> >>>>>>>>> looked at the *IPs a lot in other software I use just to see >>> >>>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>>> biggest >>> >>>>>>>>> things on the roadmap. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> When you're talking about "changing interfaces", are you >>> >>>>>>>>> talking >>> >>>>>>>>> about >>> >>>>>>>>> public or internal APIs? I do think many people hate changing >>> >>>>>>>>> public APIs >>> >>>>>>>>> and I actually think that's for the best of the project. That's >>> >>>>>>>>> a >>> >>>>>>>>> technical >>> >>>>>>>>> debate, but basically, the worst thing when you're using a >>> >>>>>>>>> piece >>> >>>>>>>>> of >>> >>>>>>>>> software >>> >>>>>>>>> is that the developers constantly ask you to rewrite your app >>> >>>>>>>>> to >>> >>>>>>>>> update to a >>> >>>>>>>>> new version (and thus benefit from bug fixes, etc). Cue anyone >>> >>>>>>>>> who's used >>> >>>>>>>>> Protobuf, or Guava. The "let's get everyone to change their >>> >>>>>>>>> code >>> >>>>>>>>> this >>> >>>>>>>>> release" model works well within a single large company, but >>> >>>>>>>>> doesn't work >>> >>>>>>>>> well for a community, which is why nearly all *very* widely >>> >>>>>>>>> used >>> >>>>>>>>> programming >>> >>>>>>>>> interfaces (I'm talking things like Java standard library, >>> >>>>>>>>> Windows >>> >>>>>>>>> API, etc) >>> >>>>>>>>> almost *never* break backwards compatibility. All this is done >>> >>>>>>>>> within reason >>> >>>>>>>>> though, e.g. we do change things in major releases (2.x, 3.x, >>> >>>>>>>>> etc). >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: [hidden email] >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Stavros Kontopoulos >>> >>>>> Senior Software Engineer >>> >>>>> Lightbend, Inc. >>> >>>>> p: +30 6977967274 >>> >>>>> e: [hidden email] >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: [hidden email] > > > ________________________________ > > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/Spark-Improvement-Proposals-tp19268p19359.html > > To start a new topic under Apache Spark Developers List, email [hidden > email] > To unsubscribe from Apache Spark Developers List, click here. > NAML > > > ________________________________ > View this message in context: RE: Spark Improvement Proposals > Sent from the Apache Spark Developers List mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
