I think that It would be great though if we have a clear blocker that makes
the release pointless if we want to drop this RC practically given that we
will schedule 3.1.1 faster - non-regression bug fixes will be delivered to
end users relatively fast.
That would make it clear which option we should take. I personally don't
mind dropping 3.1.0 as well; we'll have to wait for the INFRA team's
response anyway.

2021년 1월 7일 (목) 오후 1:03, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com>님이 작성:

> I don't agree the first two are blockers for reasons I gave earlier.
> Those two do look like important issues - are they regressions from 3.0.1?
> I do agree we'd probably cut a new RC for those in any event, so agree
> with the plan to drop 3.1.0 (if the Maven release can't be overwritten)
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:38 PM Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Before we discover the pre-uploaded artifacts, both Jungtaek and Hyukjin
>> already made two blockers shared here.
>> IIUC, it meant implicitly RC1 failure at that time.
>> In addition to that, there are two correctness issues. So, I made up my
>> mind to cast -1 for this RC1 before joining this thread.
>> SPARK-34011 ALTER TABLE .. RENAME TO PARTITION doesn't refresh cache
>> (committed after tagging)
>> SPARK-34027 ALTER TABLE .. RECOVER PARTITIONS doesn't refresh cache (PR
>> is under review)
>> Although the above issues are not regression, those are enough for me to
>> give -1 for 3.1.0 RC1.
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:52 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I just don't see a reason to believe there's a rush? just test it as
>>> normal? I did, you can too, etc.
>>> Or specifically what blocks the current RC?

Reply via email to