spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cody Koeninger <>
Subject Re: Spark Improvement Proposals
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:17:06 GMT
Reynold, thanks, LGTM.

Sean, great concerns.  I agree that behavior is largely cultural and
writing down a process won't necessarily solve any problems one way or
the other.  But one outwardly visible change I'm hoping for out of
this a way for people who have a stake in Spark, but can't follow
jiras closely, to go to the Spark website, see the list of proposed
major changes, contribute discussion on issues that are relevant to
their needs, and see a clear direction once a vote has passed.  We
don't have that now.

Ryan, realistically speaking any PMC member can and will stop any
changes they don't like anyway, so might as well be up front about the
reality of the situation.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Sean Owen <> wrote:
> The text seems fine to me. Really, this is not describing a fundamentally
> new process, which is good. We've always had JIRAs, we've always been able
> to call a VOTE for a big question. This just writes down a sensible set of
> guidelines for putting those two together when a major change is proposed. I
> look forward to turning some big JIRAs into a request for a SPIP.
> My only hesitation is that this seems to be perceived by some as a new or
> different thing, that is supposed to solve some problems that aren't
> otherwise solvable. I see mentioned problems like: clear process for
> managing work, public communication, more committers, some sort of binding
> outcome and deadline.
> If SPIP is supposed to be a way to make people design in public and a way to
> force attention to a particular change, then, this doesn't do that by
> itself. Therefore I don't want to let a detailed discussion of SPIP detract
> from the discussion about doing what SPIP implies. It's just a process
> document.
> Still, a fine step IMHO.
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:22 PM Reynold Xin <> wrote:
>> Updated. Any feedback from other community members?
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Cody Koeninger <>
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for doing that.
>>> Given that there are at least 4 different Apache voting processes,
>>> "typical Apache vote process" isn't meaningful to me.
>>> I think the intention is that in order to pass, it needs at least 3 +1
>>> votes from PMC members *and no -1 votes from PMC members*.  But the document
>>> doesn't explicitly say that second part.
>>> There's also no mention of the duration a vote should remain open.
>>> There's a mention of a month for finding a shepherd, but that's different.
>>> Other than that, LGTM.
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Reynold Xin <> wrote:
>>>> Here's a new draft that incorporated most of the feedback:
>>>> I added a specific role for SPIP Author and another one for SPIP
>>>> Shepherd.
>>>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Xiao Li <> wrote:
>>>>> During the summit, I also had a lot of discussions over similar topics
>>>>> with multiple Committers and active users. I heard many fantastic ideas.
>>>>> believe Spark improvement proposals are good channels to collect the
>>>>> requirements/designs.
>>>>> IMO, we also need to consider the priority when working on these items.
>>>>> Even if the proposal is accepted, it does not mean it will be implemented
>>>>> and merged immediately. It is not a FIFO queue.
>>>>> Even if some PRs are merged, sometimes, we still have to revert them
>>>>> back, if the design and implementation are not reviewed carefully. We
>>>>> to ensure our quality. Spark is not an application software. It is an
>>>>> infrastructure software that is being used by many many companies. We
>>>>> to be very careful in the design and implementation, especially
>>>>> adding/changing the external APIs.
>>>>> When I developed the Mainframe infrastructure/middleware software in
>>>>> the past 6 years, I were involved in the discussions with external/internal
>>>>> customers. The to-do feature list was always above 100. Sometimes, the
>>>>> customers are feeling frustrated when we are unable to deliver them on
>>>>> due to the resource limits and others. Even if they paid us billions,
>>>>> still need to do it phase by phase or sometimes they have to accept the
>>>>> workarounds. That is the reality everyone has to face, I think.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Xiao Li

To unsubscribe e-mail:

View raw message