Hi, BTW, wondering aloud. Since it was agreed to skip 3.1.0 and go ahead with 3.1.1, what's gonna happen with v3.1.0 tag [1]? Is it going away and we'll see 3.1.1-rc1?
[1] https://github.com/apache/spark/tree/v3.1.0-rc1 Pozdrawiam, Jacek Laskowski ---- https://about.me/JacekLaskowski "The Internals Of" Online Books <https://books.japila.pl/> Follow me on https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski <https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:12 PM Jacek Laskowski <ja...@japila.pl> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm just reading this now. I'm for 3.1.1 with no 3.1.0 but the news that > we're skipping that particular release. Gonna be more fun! :) > > Pozdrawiam, > Jacek Laskowski > ---- > https://about.me/JacekLaskowski > "The Internals Of" Online Books <https://books.japila.pl/> > Follow me on https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski > > <https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski> > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:13 AM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thank you Holden and Wenchen! >> >> Let me: >> - prepare a PR for news in spark-website first about 3.1.0 accident late >> tonight (in KST) >> - and start to prepare 3.1.1 probably in few more days like next monday >> in case other people have different thoughts >> >> >> >> 2021년 1월 7일 (목) 오후 2:04, Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca>님이 작성: >> >>> I think that posting the 3.1.0 maven release was an accident and we're >>> going to 3.1.1 RCs is the right step forward. >>> I'd ask for maybe a day before cutting the 3.1.1 release, I think >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-34018 is also a blocker (at >>> first I thought it was just a test issue, but Dongjoon pointed out the NPE >>> happens in prod too). >>> >>> I'd also like to echo the: it's totally ok we all make mistakes >>> especially in partially manual & partially automated environments, I've >>> created a bunch of RCs labels without recognizing they were getting pushed >>> automatically. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 8:57 PM Wenchen Fan <cloud0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with Jungtaek that people are likely to be biased when testing >>>> 3.1.0. At least this will not be the same community-blessed release as >>>> previous ones, because the voting is already affected by the fact that >>>> 3.1.0 is already in maven central. Skipping 3.1.0 sounds better to me. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:54 PM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Okay, let me just start to prepare 3.1.1. I think that will address >>>>> all concerns except that 3.1.0 will remain in Maven as incomplete. >>>>> By right, removal in the Maven repo is disallowed. Overwrite is >>>>> possible as far as I know but other mirrors that maintain cache will get >>>>> affected. >>>>> Maven is one of the downstream publish channels, and we haven't >>>>> officially announced and published it to Apache repo anyway. >>>>> I will prepare to upload news in spark-website to explain that 3.1.0 >>>>> is incompletely published because there was something wrong during the >>>>> release process, and we go to 3.1.1 right away. >>>>> Are we all good with this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2021년 1월 7일 (목) 오후 1:11, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com>님이 작성: >>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >>> Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): >>> https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> >>> YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau >>> >>
