openinx commented on issue #3115:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/3115#issuecomment-938280504


   Linked to the [mail list 
discussion](https://lists.apache.org/x/thread.html/r6adba306a593c6c036ed8cce9af9fb4cde831e2b11e744375ca341ea@%3Cdev.iceberg.apache.org%3E):
 
   
   > Thanks for the context on the Flink side! I think it sounds reasonable to
   keep up to date with the latest supported Flink version. If we want, we
   could later go with something similar to what we do for Spark but we’ll see
   how it goes and what the Flink community needs. We should probably add a
   section to our Flink docs that explains and links to Flink’s support policy
   and has a table of Iceberg versions that work with Flink versions. (We
   should probably have the same table for Spark, too!)
   >
   > For Spark, I’m also leaning toward the modified option 3 where we keep all
   of the code in the main repository but only build with one module at a time
   by default. It makes sense to switch based on modules — rather than
   selecting src paths within a module — so that it is easy to run a build
   with all modules if you choose to — for example, when building release
   binaries.
   >
   > The reason I think we should go with option 3 is for testing. If we have a
   single repo with api, core, etc. and spark then changes to the common
   modules can be tested by CI actions. Updates to individual Spark modules
   would be completely independent. There is a slight inconvenience that when
   an API used by Spark changes, the author would still need to fix multiple
   Spark versions. But the trade-off is that with a separate repository like
   option 2, changes that break Spark versions are not caught and then the
   Spark repository’s CI ends up failing on completely unrelated changes. That
   would be a major pain, felt by everyone contributing to the Spark
   integration, so I think option 3 is the best path forward.
   >
   > It sounds like we probably have some agreement now, but please speak up if
   you think another option would be better.
   >
   > The next step is to prototype the build changes to test out option 3. Or if
   you prefer option 2, then prototype those changes as well. I think that
   Anton is planning to do this, but if you have time and the desire to do it
   please reach out and coordinate with us!
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to