We should have shaded all Spark’s dependencies :( On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:47 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For users that would inherit Jackson and use it directly, or whose > dependencies do. Spark itself (with modifications) should be OK with > the change. > It's risky and normally wouldn't backport, except that I've heard a > few times about concerns about CVEs affecting Databind, so wondering > who else out there might have an opinion. I'm not pushing for it > necessarily. > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:18 PM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > > > > For Jackson - are you worrying about JSON parsing for users or internal > Spark functionality breaking? > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:02 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> There's only one other item on my radar, which is considering updating > >> Jackson to 2.9 in branch-2.4 to get security fixes. Pros: it's come up > >> a few times now that there are a number of CVEs open for 2.6.7. Cons: > >> not clear they affect Spark, and Jackson 2.6->2.9 does change Jackson > >> behavior non-trivially. That said back-porting the update PR to 2.4 > >> worked out OK locally. Any strong opinions on this one? > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:49 PM Wenchen Fan <cloud0...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > I volunteer to be the release manager for 2.4.2, as I was also going > to propose 2.4.2 because of the reverting of SPARK-25250. Is there any > other ongoing bug fixes we want to include in 2.4.2? If no I'd like to > start the release process today (CST). > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Wenchen > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:44 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I think the 'only backport bug fixes to branches' principle remains > sound. But what's a bug fix? Something that changes behavior to match what > is explicitly supposed to happen, or implicitly supposed to happen -- > implied by what other similar things do, by reasonable user expectations, > or simply how it worked previously. > >> >> > >> >> Is this a bug fix? I guess the criteria that matches is that > behavior doesn't match reasonable user expectations? I don't know enough to > have a strong opinion. I also don't think there is currently an objection > to backporting it, whatever it's called. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Is the question whether this needs a new release? There's no harm in > another point release, other than needing a volunteer release manager. One > could say, wait a bit longer to see what more info comes in about 2.4.1. > But given that 2.4.1 took like 2 months, it's reasonable to move towards a > release cycle again. I don't see objection to that either (?) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> The meta question remains: is a 'bug fix' definition even agreed, > and being consistently applied? There aren't correct answers, only best > guesses from each person's own experience, judgment and priorities. These > can differ even when applied in good faith. > >> >> > >> >> Sometimes the variance of opinion comes because people have > different info that needs to be surfaced. Here, maybe it's best to share > what about that offline conversation was convincing, for example. > >> >> > >> >> I'd say it's also important to separate what one would prefer from > what one can't live with(out). Assuming one trusts the intent and > experience of the handful of others with an opinion, I'd defer to someone > who wants X and will own it, even if I'm moderately against it. Otherwise > we'd get little done. > >> >> > >> >> In that light, it seems like both of the PRs at issue here are not > _wrong_ to backport. This is a good pair that highlights why, when there > isn't a clear reason to do / not do something (e.g. obvious errors, > breaking public APIs) we give benefit-of-the-doubt in order to get it later. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:09 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Sorry, I should be more clear about what I'm trying to say here. > >> >>> > >> >>> In the past, Xiao has taken the opposite stance. A good example is > PR #21060 that was a very similar situation: behavior didn't match what was > expected and there was low risk. There was a long argument and the patch > didn't make it into 2.3 (to my knowledge). > >> >>> > >> >>> What we call these low-risk behavior fixes doesn't matter. I called > it a bug on #21060 but I'm applying Xiao's previous definition here to make > a point. Whatever term we use, we clearly have times when we want to allow > a patch because it is low risk and helps someone. Let's just be clear that > that's perfectly fine. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:34 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> > wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> How is this a bug fix? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:30 AM Xiao Li <lix...@databricks.com> > wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Michael and I had an offline discussion about this PR > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/24365. He convinced me that this is > a bug fix. The code changes of this bug fix are very tiny and the risk is > very low. To avoid any behavior change in the patch releases, this PR also > added a legacy flag whose default value is off. > >> >>>>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> >
