Thanks for your feedbacks! Working with Yuming to reduce the risk of stability and quality. Will keep you posted when the proposal is ready.
Cheers, Xiao Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> 于2019年1月16日周三 上午9:27写道： > +1 for what Marcelo and Hyukjin said. > > In particular, I agree that we can't expect Hive to release a version that > is now more than 3 years old just to solve a problem for Spark. Maybe that > would have been a reasonable ask instead of publishing a fork years ago, > but I think this is now Spark's problem. > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:02 PM Marcelo Vanzin <van...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> +1 to that. HIVE-16391 by itself means we're giving up things like >> Hadoop 3, and we're also putting the burden on the Hive folks to fix a >> problem that we created. >> >> The current PR is basically a Spark-side fix for that bug. It does >> mean also upgrading Hive (which gives us Hadoop 3, yay!), but I think >> it's really the right path to take here. >> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:32 PM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Resolving HIVE-16391 means Hive to release 1.2.x that contains the >> fixes of our Hive fork (correct me if I am mistaken). >> > >> > Just to be honest by myself and as a personal opinion, that basically >> says Hive to take care of Spark's dependency. >> > Hive looks going ahead for 3.1.x and no one would use the newer release >> of 1.2.x. In practice, Spark doesn't make a release 1.6.x anymore for >> instance, >> > >> > Frankly, my impression was that it's, honestly, our mistake to fix. >> Since Spark community is big enough, I was thinking we should try to fix it >> by ourselves first. >> > I am not saying upgrading is the only way to get through this but I >> think we should at least try first, and see what's next. >> > >> > It does, yes, sound more risky to upgrade it in our side but I think >> it's worth to check and try it and see if it's possible. >> > I think this is a standard approach to upgrade the dependency than >> using the fork or letting Hive side to release another 1.2.x. >> > >> > If we fail to upgrade it for critical or inevitable reasons somehow, >> yes, we could find an alternative but that basically means >> > we're going to stay in 1.2.x for, at least, a long time (say .. until >> Spark 4.0.0?). >> > >> > I know somehow it happened to be sensitive but to be just literally >> honest to myself, I think we should make a try. >> > >> >> >> -- >> Marcelo >> > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Netflix >
