spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wenchen Fan <cloud0...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Spark 2.4.2
Date Fri, 19 Apr 2019 02:53:21 GMT
I've cut RC1. If people think we must upgrade Jackson in 2.4, I can cut RC2
shortly.

Thanks,
Wenchen

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 3:32 AM Felix Cheung <felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Re shading - same argument I’ve made earlier today in a PR...
>
> (Context- in many cases Spark has light or indirect dependencies but
> bringing them into the process breaks users code easily)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Heuer <heuermh@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:41 AM
> *To:* Reynold Xin
> *Cc:* Sean Owen; Michael Armbrust; Ryan Blue; Spark Dev List; Wenchen
> Fan; Xiao Li
> *Subject:* Re: Spark 2.4.2
>
> +100
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2019, at 1:48 AM, Reynold Xin <rxin@databricks.com> wrote:
>
> We should have shaded all Spark’s dependencies :(
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:47 PM Sean Owen <srowen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For users that would inherit Jackson and use it directly, or whose
>> dependencies do. Spark itself (with modifications) should be OK with
>> the change.
>> It's risky and normally wouldn't backport, except that I've heard a
>> few times about concerns about CVEs affecting Databind, so wondering
>> who else out there might have an opinion. I'm not pushing for it
>> necessarily.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:18 PM Reynold Xin <rxin@databricks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > For Jackson - are you worrying about JSON parsing for users or internal
>> Spark functionality breaking?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:02 PM Sean Owen <srowen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There's only one other item on my radar, which is considering updating
>> >> Jackson to 2.9 in branch-2.4 to get security fixes. Pros: it's come up
>> >> a few times now that there are a number of CVEs open for 2.6.7. Cons:
>> >> not clear they affect Spark, and Jackson 2.6->2.9 does change Jackson
>> >> behavior non-trivially. That said back-porting the update PR to 2.4
>> >> worked out OK locally. Any strong opinions on this one?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:49 PM Wenchen Fan <cloud0fan@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I volunteer to be the release manager for 2.4.2, as I was also going
>> to propose 2.4.2 because of the reverting of SPARK-25250. Is there any
>> other ongoing bug fixes we want to include in 2.4.2? If no I'd like to
>> start the release process today (CST).
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Wenchen
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:44 AM Sean Owen <srowen@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think the 'only backport bug fixes to branches' principle remains
>> sound. But what's a bug fix? Something that changes behavior to match what
>> is explicitly supposed to happen, or implicitly supposed to happen --
>> implied by what other similar things do, by reasonable user expectations,
>> or simply how it worked previously.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is this a bug fix? I guess the criteria that matches is that
>> behavior doesn't match reasonable user expectations? I don't know enough to
>> have a strong opinion. I also don't think there is currently an objection
>> to backporting it, whatever it's called.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is the question whether this needs a new release? There's no harm
>> in another point release, other than needing a volunteer release manager.
>> One could say, wait a bit longer to see what more info comes in about
>> 2.4.1. But given that 2.4.1 took like 2 months, it's reasonable to move
>> towards a release cycle again. I don't see objection to that either (?)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The meta question remains: is a 'bug fix' definition even agreed,
>> and being consistently applied? There aren't correct answers, only best
>> guesses from each person's own experience, judgment and priorities. These
>> can differ even when applied in good faith.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sometimes the variance of opinion comes because people have
>> different info that needs to be surfaced. Here, maybe it's best to share
>> what about that offline conversation was convincing, for example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd say it's also important to separate what one would prefer from
>> what one can't live with(out). Assuming one trusts the intent and
>> experience of the handful of others with an opinion, I'd defer to someone
>> who wants X and will own it, even if I'm moderately against it. Otherwise
>> we'd get little done.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In that light, it seems like both of the PRs at issue here are
not
>> _wrong_ to backport. This is a good pair that highlights why, when there
>> isn't a clear reason to do / not do something (e.g. obvious errors,
>> breaking public APIs) we give benefit-of-the-doubt in order to get it later.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:09 PM Ryan Blue <
>> rblue@netflix.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Sorry, I should be more clear about what I'm trying to say
here.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> In the past, Xiao has taken the opposite stance. A good example
is
>> PR #21060 that was a very similar situation: behavior didn't match what was
>> expected and there was low risk. There was a long argument and the patch
>> didn't make it into 2.3 (to my knowledge).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> What we call these low-risk behavior fixes doesn't matter.
I
>> called it a bug on #21060 but I'm applying Xiao's previous definition here
>> to make a point. Whatever term we use, we clearly have times when we want
>> to allow a patch because it is low risk and helps someone. Let's just be
>> clear that that's perfectly fine.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:34 AM Ryan Blue <rblue@netflix.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> How is this a bug fix?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:30 AM Xiao Li <lixiao@databricks.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Michael and I had an offline discussion about this
PR
>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/24365. He convinced me that this is
>> a bug fix. The code changes of this bug fix are very tiny and the risk is
>> very low. To avoid any behavior change in the patch releases, this PR also
>> added a legacy flag whose default value is off.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>> >>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message