On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:39 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The community will be less willing to accept large > > changes that require multiple rounds of patches for stability and API > > convergence. Our contributions to Libhdfs++ in the HDFS community took a > > significantly long time for the very same reason. > > Please don't use bad experiences from another open source community as > leverage in this discussion. I'm sorry that things didn't go the way > you wanted in Apache Hadoop but this is a distinct community which > happens to operate under a similar open governance model. There are some more radical and community building options as well. Take the subversion project as a precedent. With subversion, any Apache committer can request and receive a commit bit on some large fraction of subversion. So why not take this a bit further and give every parquet committer a commit bit in Arrow? Or even make them be first class committers in Arrow? Possibly even make it policy that every Parquet committer who asks will be given committer status in Arrow. That relieves a lot of the social anxiety here. Parquet committers can't be worried at that point whether their patches will get merged; they can just merge them. Arrow shouldn't worry much about inviting in the Parquet committers. After all, Arrow already depends a lot on parquet so why not invite them in?
