also take a look at this jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-47320 for this also an alternate PR was opened. This problem is do deep in code, that I even showed you that in the existing test itself, if the join condition's operand are swapped, test fails.. Its completely broken , the self joins. I had proposed a consistent fix, which solves the issue completely and logically, but again an alternate PR was filed.. What issue was there in my PR , which I created...? Regards Asif
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 11:14 AM Asif Shahid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 10:56 AM Peter Toth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> As for the fix, itself, is not indicative of any thing as its a one >>> liner, test has uncanny resemblance >> >> >> Asif, what exactly is the "uncanny resemblance" between those test cases >> in https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49154/changes vs >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/55644/changes ? Besides the fact >> that obviously they are comparing canonicalized forms. >> Again, sorry for not noticing your PR, but I don't feel my fix has >> anything to do with yours. >> > Ok. I respect your opinion. Each one is entitled to its own view > >> >> 1) Look at bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-51016 >>> To discover this bug and reproduce it reliably, I spent nearly 2- 3 >>> weeks. I filed a PR. The bug was fixed via a different PR , taken a >>> different route. >> >> >> Do you see anything in common between >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/50029/changes and >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/50757/changes ? >> Because I do see. That someone else had a much better idea: >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/50757#issuecomment-2844972082 / >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/50230 and it was implemented for >> the benefit of Spark. >> IMO, that's the normal way of dealing with issues in an open-source >> project. Ideas come and go and hopefully the one best wins. >> > The checksum approach has its expense. That can come later , because > apriori its possible to detect whether the expression is returning value > from an indeterministic expression. > You opened an alternate PR, which I have described in the PR discussion > that to fix the round robin issue which you were dealing with, you are > trying to impose an order in in-deterministic expression evaluattion, which > itself is against the basic premise that if data is in-determinate, there > cannot be order in it. > What issue did u see in the logic, that an alternate PR was opened...which > impacted all the stages ( including the ancestors?) and I already discussed > internally why the idea you had in mind would not work. I specifically > asked, why dont we discuss via the PR filed... > > > >> >> Peter >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 6:38 PM Asif Shahid <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Nicholas, >>> You wanted some examples , right: >>> 1) Look at bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-51016 >>> To discover this bug and reproduce it reliably, I spent nearly 2- 3 >>> weeks. I filed a PR. The bug was fixed via a different PR , taken a >>> different route. >>> Did any one who created new PR and route, showed up any unaddressable >>> logical issue? >>> The same goes for all the PRs ( which in case I have closed) >>> Regards >>> Asif >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 9:06 AM Nicholas Chammas < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think repeatedly calling the contributors on this list a “cartel” is >>>> not conducive to a calm and amicable resolution. >>>> >>>> You may have some history built up that led you to use that word, but >>>> to the rest of us it comes out of nowhere; you in fact opened this thread >>>> with that attack. If you keep making your case in this manner, you will >>>> just turn everyone against you. >>>> >>>> If there is a history of what you feel is others stealing your work, >>>> please link to a few examples so we can see what you are seeing. If you >>>> can’t do that, then just focus on this current example. And try to refrain >>>> from calling people names unless your goal is just to have a fight, as >>>> opposed to resolving the problematic behavior so you can continue to >>>> contribute. >>>> >>>> I am not a committer and don’t have any special role in this community. >>>> I am speaking just as an observer and regular contributor to the project. >>>> >>>> > I have experienced this before, as recent as couple of months back ( >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-54386) >>>> >>>> For others following along, I took a look at this ticket and the >>>> associated PRs: #53261 <https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53261> / >>>> #53100 <https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53100> >>>> >>>> It looks like Asif is upset that he submitted a fix for the same issue >>>> a week or so prior to the fix that eventually got merged. But the fixes are >>>> different, and the one that got merged is a lot shorter, though they are >>>> both simple. The PR that got merged was submitted by someone who appears to >>>> be employed by Databricks; perhaps this is part of the “cartel” accusation. >>>> The two PRs were reviewed by different committers, however, and the one >>>> that got merged was merged in by someone who does _not_ work for >>>> Databricks. >>>> >>>> I don’t see anything here other than the normal dynamic of a large and >>>> busy open source project. Committer attention is limited; things fall >>>> through the cracks; different contributors may occasionally work on the >>>> same thing without knowing about each other. A minor help to this specific >>>> problem would be to have some way of automatically linking issues that >>>> appear to be about the same thing. >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 28, 2026, at 11:33 AM, Asif Shahid <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> Pls see inline for comments/ replies >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 6:11 AM Peter Toth <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey Asif, >>>>> >>>>> Are you referring to >>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49154/changes vs. >>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/55644/changes? Those are >>>>> definitely solving the same issue but I can assure you I wouldn't take any >>>>> code from your PR without consulting with you first. >>>>> >>>> Yes Indeed Peter, I am referring to those. >>>> As for the fix, itself, is not indicative of any thing as its a one >>>> liner, test has uncanny resemblance. >>>> >>>> >>>>> As far as I remember, I opened SPARK-56694 / >>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/55644 because I ran into that >>>>> minor bug during the implementation of >>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/55298. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Sorry, I didn't check whether a ticket or PR already existed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The below I am addressing to the whole cartel.: >>>> I have experienced this before, as recent as couple of months back ( >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-54386) >>>> I have experienced, my personal effort ( going into weeks) to debug, >>>> reproduce issue reliably , being hijacked by members, without even >>>> discussing the fix proposed, ( by opening new PRs). ( If interested, I can >>>> provide details of the PRs / issues I am talking about) >>>> I have seen a perfectly valid PR being nixed , by following comment >>>> which essentially said >>>> " my code of making the cache lookup more effective , would result in >>>> greater chances of stale cache being picked, which already spark suffers >>>> from." >>>> Now the PR was related to collapsing the projects in analysis phase, >>>> and side effect was cache pick up being more sensitive. >>>> So this is such a frivolous reason to nix the PR , because "staleness" >>>> is an underlying existing issue which had nothing to do with my PR. And its >>>> more amusing , that if a DB is giving even one wrong result in millions, >>>> that makes all the results a suspect in any case. It does not matter at >>>> what frequency this occurs. To me the real reason was code complexity ( & >>>> more likely the loss of control of the code to the outsider). >>>> >>>> The reason I call this open source community as cartel, is because, I >>>> have seen the way it works pretty closely and have experienced it in the >>>> email exchanges which happen on this group. >>>> For the same PR , same issue, if advertently or inadvertently , other >>>> person ( especially a member) gets his changes pushed, by the virtue of his >>>> standing/position and the "for profit" company the person works, how would >>>> you give the credit to the original person who discovered the issue first / >>>> provided the fix? >>>> Why are issues filed by some immediately worked upon by members ( some >>>> of whom claim to be working full time on spark) ? Is it because certain >>>> companies / groups ( for profit companies, mind you ) exert undue >>>> control, or the petty newbee has to be in the good books of members ( with >>>> the hope that at some point they will also reach that position of power ?) >>>> >>>> Given the AI advent and such occurrences, how will you give due credit >>>> to the original creators and how do you plan to prevent some member for >>>> taking up idea of any old open PR ( which for reasons of complexity and non >>>> technical reasons) , polishing it up and pushing it as their own? >>>> >>>> I am also curious , am I the only one who is troubled by all this, or >>>> there are others who have experienced it? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Asif >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you have further improvements please feel free to open a PR. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 8:20 AM Asif Shahid <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> I had filed a bug >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-45866 >>>>>> >>>>>> I had also opened a PR for the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now I see that the ticket I filed is still open, but the issue has >>>>>> been fixed using a new ticket >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-56694 >>>>>> >>>>>> and on top of that the bug test and ofcourse the fix ( which in any >>>>>> case would be same) has been taken from my PR for >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49154/changes#diff-137d880ff73623bf7a452bb84f9c3dbbb27ba929e7f5e070c6bff68cfc8ec71f >>>>>> >>>>>> To me this is clear unethical conduct of cartel member, unless I am >>>>>> missing some valid reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the irony is that the fix is still incomplete, as I just found >>>>>> and filed a new ticket >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-57126 >>>>>> >>>>>> I know that atleast some cartel members are insecure and think of OSS >>>>>> as their fiefdom, but this sort of behaviour , I never expected. >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Asif >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
