Hi Wes, > > Do these need to be dependent on the 64-bit array length discussion?
We could hack something that can read the lower 32-bit range, so I guess not, but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think there is likely still enough time to have the discussion and get these implemented, one way or another. For the record, I don't think we should hold a major release hostage > if we aren't able to complete various feature milestones in time. > Since it's been about 5-6 weeks since 0.14.0 we're coming close to the > desired 8-10 week timeline for major releases, so if we need to have > 0.16.0 prior to 1.0.0, I think that is OK also. I agree with the time based milestones in practice, but we are backpedaling on the intent to keep type parity between the two reference implementations. At least the way I read the previous threads on the topic, I thought there was lazy consensus that in lieu of requiring working implementations in Java and C++ be checked in at the same time, we would rely on the release as a mechanism to forcing function for parity. Thanks, Micah On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:32 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > Agreed with Wes. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > Le 14/08/2019 à 20:30, Wes McKinney a écrit : > > For the record, I don't think we should hold a major release hostage > > if we aren't able to complete various feature milestones in time. > > Since it's been about 5-6 weeks since 0.14.0 we're coming close to the > > desired 8-10 week timeline for major releases, so if we need to have > > 0.16.0 prior to 1.0.0, I think that is OK also. > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:45 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:43 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> is there anything else that has come up that > >>>> definitely needs to happen before we can release again? > >>> > >>> We need to decide on a way forward for LargeList, LargeBinary, etc, > types... > >>> > >> > >> Do these need to be dependent on the 64-bit array length discussion? > >> They seem somewhat orthogonal to me. If we have to release 0.15.0 > >> without the Java side of these, that's OK with me, since reaching > >> format implementation completeness is more of a 1.0.0 concern > >> > >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:27 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> hi folks, > >>>> > >>>> Since there have been a number of fairly serious issues (e.g. > >>>> ARROW-6060) since 0.14.1 that have been fixed I think we should start > >>>> planning of the next major release. Note that we still have some > >>>> format-related work (the Flatbuffers alignment issue) that ought to be > >>>> resolved (not a small task since it affects 4 or 5 implementations), > >>>> but aside from that, is there anything else that has come up that > >>>> definitely needs to happen before we can release again? > >>>> > >>>> I would say cutting a release somewhere around the US Labor Day > >>>> holiday (~the week after or so) would be called for. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Wes > >>>> >
