I really would like to see a 1.0.0 release with complete implementations for C++ and Java. From my experience, that interoperability has been a major selling point for the project. That being said, my time for contributions has been pretty limited lately and I know that Java has been lagging, so if the rest of the community would like to push forward with a reduced scope, that is okay with me. I'll still continue to do what I can on Java to fill in the gaps.
Bryan On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:47 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all -- are there some opinions about this? > > Thanks > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > hi folks, > > > > Previously we had discussed a plan for making a 1.0.0 release based on > > completeness of columnar format integration tests and making > > forward/backward compatibility guarantees as formalized in > > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/docs/source/format/Versioning.rst > > > > In particular, we wanted to demonstrate comprehensive Java/C++ > interoperability. > > > > As time has passed we have stalled out a bit on completing integration > > tests for the "long tail" of data types and columnar format features. > > > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Yu68rn2XMBpAArUfCOP9LC7uHb06CQrtqKE5vQ4bQx4/edit?usp=sharing > > > > As such I wanted to propose a reduction in scope so that we can make a > > 1.0.0 release sooner. The plan would be as follows: > > > > * Endeavor to have integration tests implemented and working in at > > least one reference implementation (likely to be the C++ library). It > > seems important to verify that what's in Columnar.rst is able to be > > unambiguously implemented. > > * Indicate in Versioning.rst or another place in the documentation the > > list of data types or advanced columnar format features (like > > delta/replacement dictionaries) that are not yet fully integration > > tested. > > > > Some of the essential protocol stability details and all of the most > > commonly used data types have been stable for a long time now, > > particularly after the recent alignment change. The current list of > > features that aren't being tested for cross-implementation > > compatibility should not pose risk to downstream users. > > > > Thoughts about this? The 1.0.0 release is an important milestone for > > the project and will help build continued momentum in developer and > > user community growth. > > > > Thanks > > Wes >
