spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: `Target Version` management on correctness/data-loss Issues
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:30:51 GMT
Yes. That is what I pointed in `Unfortunately, we didn't build a consensus
on what is really blocked by that.` If you are suggesting a vote, do you
mean a majority-win vote or an unanimous decision? Will it be a permanent
decision?

> I think the other interesting thing here is how exactly to come to
agreement on whether it needs to be fixed in a particular release. Like we
have been discussing on SPARK-29701. This could be a matter of opinion, so
should we do something like mail the dev list whenever one of these issues
is tagged if its not going to be back ported to an affected release?

The following seems to happen when the committers initially think like
"Seems behavioral to me and its been consistent so seems ok to skip for
2.4.5"
For example, SPARK-27619 MapType should be prohibited in hash expressions.

> A) I'm not clear on this one as to why affected and target would be
different initially,

BTW, in this email thread, I'm focusing on the `Target Version` management.
That is the only way to detect the community decision change.

Bests,
Dongjoon.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tom Graves <tgraves_cs@yahoo.com> wrote:

> thanks for bringing this up.
>
> A) I'm not clear on this one as to why affected and target would be
> different initially, other then the reasons target versions != fixed
> versions.  Is the intention here just to say, if its already been discussed
> and came to consensus not needed in certain release?  The only other
> obvious time is in spark releases that are no longer maintained.
>
> I think the other interesting thing here is how exactly to come to
> agreement on whether it needs to be fixed in a particular release. Like we
> have been discussing on SPARK-29701. This could be a matter of opinion, so
> should we do something like mail the dev list whenever one of these issues
> is tagged if its not going to be back ported to an affected release?
>
> Tom
> On Sunday, January 26, 2020, 11:22:13 PM CST, Dongjoon Hyun <
> dongjoon.hyun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, All.
>
> After 2.4.5 RC1 vote failure, I asked your opinions about
> correctness/dataloss issues (at mailing lists/JIRAs/PRs) in order to
> collect the current status and public opinion widely in the community to
> build a consensus on this at this time.
>
> Before talking about those issues, please remind that
>
>     - Apache Spark 2.4.x is the only live version because 2.3.x is EOL and
> 3.0.0 is not released.
>     - Apache Spark community has the following rule: "Correctness and data
> loss issues should be considered Blockers."
>
> Unfortunately, we didn't build a consensus on what is really blocked by
> that. In reality, it was just our resolution for the quality and it works a
> little differently.
>
> In this email, I want to talk about correctness/dataloss issues and
> observed public opinions. They fall into the following categories roughly.
>
> 1. Resolved in both 3.0.0 and 2.4.x
>    - ex) SPARK-30447 Constant propagation nullability issue
>    - No problem. However, this case sometimes goes to (2)
>
> 2. Resolved in both 3.0.0 and 2.4.x. But, reverted in 2.4.x later.
>    - ex) SPARK-26021 -0.0 and 0.0 not treated consistently, doesn't match
> Hive
>    - "We don't want to change the behavior in the maintenence release"
>
> 3. Resolved in 3.0.0 and not backported because this is 3.0.0-specific.
>    - ex) SPARK-29906 Reading of csv file fails with adaptive execution
> turned on
>    - No problem.
>
> 4. Resolved in 3.0.0 and not backported due to technical difficulty.
>    - ex) SPARK-26154 Stream-stream joins - left outer join gives
> inconsistent output
>    - "This is not backported due to the technical difficulty"
>
> 5. Resolved in 3.0.0 and not backported because this is not public API.
>    - ex) SPARK-29503 MapObjects doesn't copy Unsafe data when nested under
> Safe data
>    - "Since `catalyst` is not public, it's less worth backporting this."
>
> 6. Resolved in 3.0.0 and not backported because we forget since there was
> a no Target Version.
>    - ex) SPARK-28375 Make pullupCorrelatedPredicate idempotent
>    - "Adding the 'correctness' label so we remember to backport this fix
> to 2.4.x."
>    - "This is possible, if users add the rule into
> postHocOptimizationBatches"
>
> 7. Open with Target Version 3.0.0.
>    - ex) SPARK-29701 Correct behaviours of group analytical queries when
> empty input given
>    - "We aren't fully SQL compliant there and I think that has been true
> since the beginning of spark sql"
>    - "This is not a regression"
>
> 8. Open without Target Version.
>    - I removed this case last week to give more visibility on them.
>
> Here, I want to focus that Apache Spark is a very healthy community
> because we have diverse opinions and reevaluating JIRA issues are the
> results of the community decision based on the discusson. I believe that it
> will go well eventually. In the above, I added those example JIRA IDs and
> the collected reasons just to give some colors to illustrate all cases are
> the real cases. There is no case to be blamed in the above.
>
> Although some JIRA issues will jump from one category into another
> category time to time, the categories will remain there. I want to propose
> a small additional work on `Target Version` to distinguish the above
> categories easily to communicate clearly in the community. This should be
> done by committers because we have the following policy on `Target Version`.
>
>     "Target Version. This is assigned by committers to indicate a PR has
> been accepted for possible fix by the target version."
>
> Proposed Idea:
>     A. To reduce the mismatch between `Target Version` vs `Affected
> Version`:
>        When a committer set `correctness` or `data-loss` label, `Target
> Version` should be set together according to the `Affected Versions`.
>        In case of the insufficient `Target Version` (e.g. `Target
> Version`=`3.0.0` for `Affected Version`=`2.4.4,3.0.0`), he/she need to add
> a comment on the JIRA.
>        For example, "This is 3.0.0-specific issue"
>
>     B. To reduce the mismatch between `Target Version` vs `Fixed Version`:
>        When a committer resolve `correctness` or `data-loss` labeled
> issue, `Target Version` should be compared with `Fixed Version`.
>        In case of the insufficient `Fixed Version` (e.g. `Target
> Version`=`2.4.4,3.0.0` and `Fixed Version`=`3.0.0`), he/she need to add a
> comment on the JIRA and adjust `Target Version` according to his/her
> decision.
>        For example, "This is not backported due to the technical
> difficulty. I'll remove `2.4.4` from `Target Version`."
>
> With the above rules, the combination of `Affected Version` / `Target
> Version` / `Fixed Version` will serve us with much easier way in searching
> them, understanding categories, and discussing how to handle properly.
>
> Bests,
> Dongjoon.
>

Mime
View raw message