Java has JNI parts, but I think they do not necessarily need to release at the same time as C++, especially since the JAR bundles the libraries; Java could just pick up the latest version of the C++ library whenever it releases. It would make it harder if the next step is to also decouple the repositories, though.
JB, I see what you're saying but I think we want to avoid declaring a "core" Arrow library as the implication is not fair to the independent and fully-featured implementations in Go, Rust, etc. But that is just a matter of wording. On Tue, Apr 9, 2024, at 17:06, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > Yeah, to be honest, I was more focused on Java versioning. > > Maybe, we can "group" Arrow components in two major areas: the "core" > libs and the components using the "core" libs. > C++ can have its own versioning, and the rest is decoupled from each > other but it will depend to C++ release. > > I think it's do-able and probably "cleaner". > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:55 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Probably major versions should match between C++ and PyArrow, but I guess >> > we could have diverging minor and patch versions. Or at least patch >> > versions given that >> > a new minor version is usually cut for bug fixes too. >> >> I believe even this would be difficult. Stable ABIs are very finicky in >> C++. If the public API surface changes in any way then it can lead to >> subtle bugs if pyarrow were to link against an older version. I also am >> not sure there is much advantage in trying to separate pyarrow from >> arrow-cpp since they are almost always changing in lockstep (e.g. any >> change to arrow-cpp enables functionality in pyarrow). >> >> I think we should maybe focus on a few more obvious cases. >> >> I think C#, JS, Java, and Go are the most obvious candidates to decouple. >> Even then, we should probably only separate these candidates if they have >> willing release managers. >> >> C/GLib, python, and ruby are all tightly coupled to C++ at the moment and >> should not be a first priority. I would have guessed that R is also in >> this list but Jacob reported in the original email that they are already >> somewhat decoupled? >> >> I don't know anything about swift or matlab. >> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 6:23 AM Alessandro Molina >> <alessan...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 3:06 PM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > We have had separate releases / votes for Arrow Rust (and Arrow >> > DataFusion) >> > > and it has served us quite well. The version schemes have diverged >> > > substantially from the monorepo (we are on version 51.0.0 in arrow-rs, >> > for >> > > example) and it doesn't seem to have caused any large confusion with >> > users >> > > >> > > >> > I think that versioning will require additional thinking for libraries like >> > PyArrow, Java etc... >> > For rust this is a non problem because there is no link to the C++ library, >> > >> > PyArrow instead is based on what the C++ library provides, >> > so there is a direct link between the features provided by C++ in a >> > specific version >> > and the features provided in PyArrow at a specific version. >> > >> > More or less PyArrow 20 should have the same bug fixes that C++ 20 has, >> > and diverging the two versions would lead to confusion easily. >> > Probably major versions should match between C++ and PyArrow, but I guess >> > we could have diverging minor and patch versions. Or at least patch >> > versions given that >> > a new minor version is usually cut for bug fixes too. >> >
