I am also +1 for a parquet-cpp release. I just added PARQUET-838. It's patch should be in the release too.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > hi Julien -- you make a good point. It might make more sense to start > at 1.0.0. Let me know if there are other opinions. > > - Wes > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 on making a parquet-cpp release. > > I don’t have a strong opinion about the starting version number and will > defer to the main parquet-cpp contributors. > > > > That said, here is my 2 cents (purely FYI): > > My experience is that giving absolute meaning to version numbers is very > subjective and can get in the way. (absolute meaning the version number > quantifies the progress of the project) > > For example, Starting at 0.5 kind of implies 1.0 follows 0.9 and it > contains twice as much as 0.5. > > Then we tend to say things like “but do we have enough to make a > release?” when a release should just be a pointer to a stable point in the > project. > > I’m not against starting at 0.5 but we should try not to convey to much > meaning in the version number related to the progress/increase in features. > > > > Julien > > > >> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> hi folks, > >> > >> Since Uwe has set up the release-making bits recently, and the API is > >> reasonably stable after the refactor to depend on libarrow, I propose > >> we go ahead and make a first official parquet-cpp source release. > >> > >> I propose that we call this release 0.5.0 instead of 0.1.0 to reflect > >> the maturity of the project. If anyone has any objections or an > >> alternate release number, feel free to suggest it. My hope would be we > >> are on a trajectory for parquet-cpp 1.0.0 within 1 years' time. > >> > >> Any more patches we need to write before the release? I know Uwe is > >> working on PARQUET-834, so we can wait for that or follow up with > >> another release within a months' time or so. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Wes > > > -- regards, Deepak Majeti
