Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revert [SPARK-27142][SPARK-31440] SQL rest API in branch 3.0 #28588

Closed

Conversation

gengliangwang
Copy link
Member

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Revert #28208 and #24076 in branch 3.0

Why are the changes needed?

Unfortunately, the PR #28208 is merged after Spark 3.0 RC 2 cut. Although the improvement is great, we can't break the policy to add new improvement commits into branch 3.0 now.

Also, if we are going to adopt the improvement in a future release, we should not release 3.0 with #24076, since the API result will be changed.

After discuss with @cloud-fan and @gatorsmile offline, we think the best choice is to revert both commits and follow community release policy.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

Yes, let's hold the SQL rest API until next release.

How was this patch tested?

Jenkins unit tests.

@gengliangwang
Copy link
Member Author

cc @erenavsarogullari @ajithme as well

@ajithme
Copy link
Contributor

ajithme commented May 20, 2020

agree. Its better to revert and we can reraise the PR on later release. will 3.x be a candidate for these PRs.?

@gengliangwang
Copy link
Member Author

@ajithme thanks for understanding! The commits are still in the master branch and they will be 3.1 as well.

@cloud-fan
Copy link
Contributor

It's unfortunate that we find problems in SQL REST API at this stage which is too late to change. LGTM to revert it from 3.0 and release it in 3.1.

@erenavsarogullari
Copy link
Member

Hi @gengliangwang,
Sure, make sense so end-user can start to use single version(3.1) directly without backward compatibility requirement. Thanks for the effort.

@gengliangwang
Copy link
Member Author

merging to 3.0

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

@gengliangwang test is still running

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

HyukjinKwon commented May 20, 2020

+1 from my side too.

@gengliangwang
Copy link
Member Author

@HyukjinKwon oh thanks for reminder

Copy link
Member

@gatorsmile gatorsmile left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 20, 2020

Test build #122871 has finished for PR 28588 at commit 9e39968.

  • This patch fails due to an unknown error code, -9.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@gengliangwang
Copy link
Member Author

retest this please.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 20, 2020

Test build #122876 has finished for PR 28588 at commit 9e39968.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@cloud-fan
Copy link
Contributor

thanks, merging to 3.0!

cloud-fan pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 20, 2020
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Revert #28208 and #24076 in branch 3.0
### Why are the changes needed?

Unfortunately, the PR  #28208 is merged after Spark 3.0 RC 2 cut. Although the improvement is great, we can't break the policy to add new improvement commits into branch 3.0 now.

Also, if we are going to adopt the improvement in a future release, we should not release 3.0 with #24076, since the API result will be changed.

After discuss with cloud-fan and gatorsmile offline, we think the best choice is to revert both commits and follow community release policy.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

Yes, let's hold the SQL rest API until next release.

### How was this patch tested?

Jenkins unit tests.

Closes #28588 from gengliangwang/revertSQLRestAPI.

Authored-by: Gengliang Wang <gengliang.wang@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
@cloud-fan cloud-fan closed this May 20, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
7 participants