Agreed with this. As I said before regarding who submits: it's not a normal ASF process to require contributions to only come from committers. Committers are of course the only people who can *commit* stuff. But the whole point of an open source project is that anyone can *contribute* -- indeed, that is how people become committers. For example, in every ASF project, anyone can open JIRAs, submit design docs, submit patches, review patches, and vote on releases. This particular process is very similar to posting a JIRA or a design doc.
I also like consensus with a deadline (e.g. someone says "here is a new SEP, we want to accept it by date X so please comment before"). In general, with this type of stuff, it's better to start with very lightweight processes and then expand them if needed. Adding lots of rules from the beginning makes it confusing and can reduce contributions. Although, as engineers, we believe that anything can be solved using mechanical rules, in practice software development is a social process that ultimately requires humans to tackle things on a case-by-case basis. Matei > On Oct 10, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: > > That seems reasonable to me. > > I do not want to see lazy consensus used on one of these proposals > though, I want a clear outcome, i.e. call for a vote, wait at least 72 > hours, get three +1s and no vetos. > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: >> Proposal submission: I think we should keep this as open as possible. If >> there is a problem with too many open proposals, then we should tackle that >> as a fix rather than excluding participation. Perhaps it will end up that >> way, but I think it's worth trying a more open model first. >> >> Majority vs consensus: My rationale is that I don't think we want to >> consider a proposal approved if it had objections serious enough that >> committers down-voted (or PMC depending on who gets a vote). If these >> proposals are like PEPs, then they represent a significant amount of >> community effort and I wouldn't want to move forward if up to half of the >> community thinks it's an untenable idea. >> >> rb >> >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: >>> >>> I think this is closer to a procedural issue than a code modification >>> issue, hence why majority. If everyone thinks consensus is better, I >>> don't care. Again, I don't feel strongly about the way we achieve >>> clarity, just that we achieve clarity. >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: >>>> Sorry, I missed that the proposal includes majority approval. Why >>>> majority >>>> instead of consensus? I think we want to build consensus around these >>>> proposals and it makes sense to discuss until no one would veto. >>>> >>>> rb >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 to votes to approve proposals. I agree that proposals should have an >>>>> official mechanism to be accepted, and a vote is an established means >>>>> of >>>>> doing that well. I like that it includes a period to review the >>>>> proposal and >>>>> I think proposals should have been discussed enough ahead of a vote to >>>>> survive the possibility of a veto. >>>>> >>>>> I also like the names that are short and (mostly) unique, like SEP. >>>>> >>>>> Where I disagree is with the requirement that a committer must formally >>>>> propose an enhancement. I don't see the value of restricting this: if >>>>> someone has the will to write up a proposal then they should be >>>>> encouraged >>>>> to do so and start a discussion about it. Even if there is a political >>>>> reality as Cody says, what is the value of codifying that in our >>>>> process? I >>>>> think restricting who can submit proposals would only undermine them by >>>>> pushing contributors out. Maybe I'm missing something here? >>>>> >>>>> rb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>> Software Engineer >>>>> Netflix >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ryan Blue >>>> Software Engineer >>>> Netflix >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ryan Blue >> Software Engineer >> Netflix > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
